UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #22

[Newthoughts]

I think there is a strong possibility that she fell over into the water, on her own.

How strong compared with the the alternative in light of ALL the other evidence? Stronger or weaker?

When do you think it happened?

 

[Newthoughts]

I would not like to be on that jury if all they have seen is what we have seen.

As it is, I agree @Tortoise - there is not enough evidence in the public domain to say he murdered her. I would not be able to say guilty.

I think from what we have seen, he raped her at the park and left her there. I think the witnessed screams were heard after the event. Libby panicked and disorientated and in a state got herself in the river. MOO.

Given the very full definition of murder - is that not still murder?

See the section causation and foreseeability
Murder in English law - Wikipedia

 

[DiploRed]

"The guy from the house on Oak Road" is Sam Alford.
The other two scream witnesses are a couple from a house in Claremont Avenue. Two witnesses but in the same house.

Alright yeah my bad. So it wouldn’t too crazy if the couple just got the time wrong and actually just heard the same screams that Sam Alford heard.

 

[Miss_French]

Thank you! Knowing that, coupled with the witnesses hearing screams, makes me wonder if this was the sequence of events.

1. PR and Libby arrive at the park. She possibly realizes she is in danger and runs out of the car.

2. PR chases her and accosts her near the river.

3. He rapes her, which is when the first witness hears the screams and leaves, with her left alive there.

4. The second set of witnesses hear screams about 10 (?) minutes later. This is Libby trying to get someone’s attention to help her.

5. In between this time and his 3rd visit to the park, she succumbs to either injuries or hyperthermia.

6. PR comes back to see if she’s still alive. He finds that she’s not and since he raped her near the river, he puts her in it and leaves.

7. Knowing he had just killed someone, he gets excited (despite what he/the defense said, his past actions were aggressive and threatening and I don’t for a second believe he wasn’t aware of that) and has to “relieve” himself again.

All of the above is IMO, I’m not stating it as fact, but it’s the most likely scenario I can come up with, working with the timeframes and the witnesses hearing the screams at different times.

But after being out of bed for several minutes, checking his phone and going to the loo, I doubt Sam Alford is going to be so soundly asleep that he doesn't hear a second set of screams 10 minutes later.

 

[tigerowl]

Given the very full definition of murder - is that not still murder?

See the section causation and foreseeability
Murder in English law - Wikipedia

I don't know. I'm not legally equipped to answer that. While I don't believe he had any intention of killing her, I feel his motive was entirely sexual and was satisfied by the act of rape, I do feel he is responsible as if he had never taken Libby there in the first place she would not have died. Whether that constitutes murder or not in any sense. I don't know.

 

[Miss_French]

Looking at the definition of murder 'the intention to cause serious harm or injury that results in a death - does allow that a violent act like a rape is sufficient.

It also adds in things like intent to kill not being necessary.

What's the source for your definition of murder? The CPS includes intent:

"Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

• Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
• unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
• any reasonable creature (human being);
• in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
• under the Queen's Peace (not in war-time);
• with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)."

"The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case."

Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[Emerald1328]

Good post.

The problem I have with the screams is that both Alford and the other two witnesses hear a very similar set of screams coming from a very similar location - by the pond. Yet neither hears two sets of screams. That makes me query timing. The Alford set is accompanied by a visual sighting of a man walking away from them

That’s very true and the Alford set coupled with the visual sighting does have a little more weight. Was the couple that heard the second set asleep and woken up by the screams they heard? If so, I could see them not hearing the first. If they weren’t asleep, maybe had the tv on? And of course, it could have been that what they heard wasn’t a human scream at all. And maybe Alford was in the bathroom after the first set? I know I always have to go to the bathroom after I’m woken up haha.

I don’t know, it is very strange that none of them heard two sets of screams (unless the couple’s timing was off, which is a possibility).

 

[Newthoughts]

I don't know. I'm not legally equipped to answer that. While I don't believe he had any intention of killing her, I feel his motive was entirely sexual and was satisfied by the act of rape, I do feel he is responsible as if he had never taken Libby there in the first place she would not have died. Whether that constitutes murder or not in any sense. I don't know.

I don't either. I'm going on a balance of probabilities thru out that evening not just at that point but also including his behaviour afterwards and his stories when interviewed.

They have also got to be considered as important elements do you not agree? Not admitting to sex when there would seem to be a very high probability she would be found if you left her outside the park is odd?

But even then reading the definition of chain of causation - if he left a freezing cold vulnerable girl in a quiet area after the rape it could still count as murder. If he left her by the river and was the man seen even more do

Tho I'm not legal so don't know.

Can I ask - in your opinion of events what is your explanation for his failure to admit to sex given the probability she would be found? Again a genuine question. And I suspect neither of us really believe the wife story.

 

[Newthoughts]

What's the source for your definition of murder? The CPS includes intent:

"Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

• Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
• unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
• any reasonable creature (human being);
• in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
• under the Queen's Peace (not in war-time);
• with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)."

"The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case."

Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

Only wikki I'm afraid but if you go to causation it the same problem

It needs a legal person really

 

[Ruthbullock]

Given the very full definition of murder - is that not still murder?

See the section causation and foreseeability
Murder in English law - Wikipedia

Following your link through to “intention” (as a hyperlink)- as this is a key part of being found guilty for murder

Lord Bridge gives the example of a man boarding a plane which he knows to be bound for Manchester. He "conclusively demonstrates" his intention to go there. It is not merely evidence from which such intention may be inferred. In the rare case where it may be necessary to direct a jury by reference to foresight of consequences, two questions arise:

(a) was death or very serious injury a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act? (b) did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act?

If the answer to both questions was in the affirmative, an inference could be drawn that the defendant had intended that consequence.

I don’t think we have seen any evidence that he intended LS to die following intercourse.

 

[tigerowl]

@Newthoughts I think he just didn't really think he had done much wrong and that he would try and lie his way out of it. It's that simple really. Unfortunately, most rapists think they will get away with it and most do. I think he was just another entitled, stupid man who thought that raping a girl was of no consequence and if he just kept denying it it would blow over.

I would be very interested to know if he fessed up to his voyeur crimes easily when questioned or if he span a similar set of lies about them. Does anyone know if any detail has been reported about that? I don't recall seeing anything.

 

[NorthernSoul]

I don't either. I'm going on a balance of probabilities thru out that evening not just at that point but also including his behaviour afterwards and his stories when interviewed.

They have also got to be considered as important elements do you not agree? Not admitting to sex when there would seem to be a very high probability she would be found if you left her outside the park is odd?

But even then reading the definition of chain of causation - if he left a freezing cold vulnerable girl in a quiet area after the rape it could still count as murder. If he left her by the river and was the man seen even more do

Tho I'm not legal so don't know.

Can I ask - in your opinion of events what is your explanation for his failure to admit to sex given the probability she would be found? Again a genuine question. And I suspect neither of us really believe the wife story.

As the extract from a legal website I mentioned earlier stated, the balance of probabilities is acceptable in a civil case but not in a criminal case, and the more extreme the case the more important it is that concrete evidence and certainty are presented to the jury. I don't think there are just two arguments here, people who think he did commit murder and people who think he didn't. There are also people like myself who think he may well have done but don't feel we have seen enough evidence to prove it.

 

[Skigh]

@Newthoughts I think he just didn't really think he had done much wrong and that he would try and lie his way out of it. It's that simple really. Unfortunately, most rapists think they will get away with it and most do. I think he was just another entitled, stupid man who thought that raping a girl was of no consequence and if he just kept denying it it would blow over.

I would be very interested to know if he fessed up to his voyeur crimes easily when questioned or if he span a similar set of lies about them. Does anyone know if any detail has been reported about that? I don't recall seeing anything.

He was forced to admit his previous crimes where there was DNA evidence,he denied others where there was no evidence.

 

[Ruthbullock]

@Newthoughts I think he just didn't really think he had done much wrong and that he would try and lie his way out of it. It's that simple really. Unfortunately, most rapists think they will get away with it and most do. I think he was just another entitled, stupid man who thought that raping a girl was of no consequence and if he just kept denying it it would blow over.

I would be very interested to know if he fessed up to his voyeur crimes easily when questioned or if he span a similar set of lies about them. Does anyone know if any detail has been reported about that? I don't recall seeing anything.

He pleaded guilty to some, but not all of them and was sentenced to jail without a trial.

 

[Winterbells]

If, for example, a couple went to the park that freezing cold night, had consensual sex, then a screaming argument and one abandoned the other who then died, would the other be guilty of murder?

 

[Scorpiette]

As the extract from a legal website I mentioned earlier stated, the balance of probabilities is acceptable in a civil case but not in a criminal case, and the more extreme the case the more important it is that concrete evidence and certainty are presented to the jury. I don't think there are just two arguments here, people who think he did commit murder and people who think he didn't. There are also people like myself who think he may well have done but don't feel we have seen enough evidence to prove it.

Hmmm, I agree. I wonder how many on the jury feels he is ultimately responsible, but think there's not enough evidence.
I guess we'll have to see the judge's guidance, and whether the judge will ask for a unanimous decision or be satisfied with a majority of ten? If there are less than 10 'guilty's does that mean he's found not guilty, or is there a retrial?

 

[Dotta]

I don't either. I'm going on a balance of probabilities thru out that evening not just at that point but also including his behaviour afterwards and his stories when interviewed.

They have also got to be considered as important elements do you not agree? Not admitting to sex when there would seem to be a very high probability she would be found if you left her outside the park is odd?

But even then reading the definition of chain of causation - if he left a freezing cold vulnerable girl in a quiet area after the rape it could still count as murder. If he left her by the river and was the man seen even more do

Tho I'm not legal so don't know.

Can I ask - in your opinion of events what is your explanation for his failure to admit to sex given the probability she would be found? Again a genuine question. And I suspect neither of us really believe the wife story.

As someone mentioned it earlier others also left Libby unattended on the street Nobody called the ambulance or police.

 

[Newthoughts]

@Newthoughts I think he just didn't really think he had done much wrong and that he would try and lie his way out of it. It's that simple really. Unfortunately, most rapists think they will get away with it and most do. I think he was just another entitled, stupid man who thought that raping a girl was of no consequence and if he just kept denying it it would blow over.

I would be very interested to know if he fessed up to his voyeur crimes easily when questioned or if he span a similar set of lies about them. Does anyone know if any detail has been reported about that? I don't recall seeing anything.

To your question - he pleaded not guilty to.his previous charges up until it got to trial - then he changed his plea to guilty to the ones with the most evidence. The others were left on file. I guess because the expense of trying them outweighed any significant difference to his sentence. Because he pleaded guilty we don't know what he said to police

To your first point - whether he believed he'd done wrong or not.

Firstly whether he really thought that was ok or even if he didn't - if he left her where he said he had there was quite a high likelihood she would be found. And a high likelihood she wouldn't have survived all night in the cold. Lots of people were looking. Therefore DNA evidence of that would exist.

Surely far better to just say we had sex - maybe lie about how she was afterwards, parted on good terms etc - and therefore protect yourself from the inevitable DNA evidence rather than wait till she was found and look very suspicious and dishonest

I cannot think of a reason to take that risk unless you were sure that DNA wouldn't be found. He's not an idiot. And it would be reasonable for him to assume water washed away most DNA

So that is one factor in my opinion based only on what we know and balancing all the other evidence

 

[Newthoughts]

If, for example, a couple went to the park that freezing cold night, had consensual sex, then a screaming argument and one abandoned the other who then died, would the other be guilty of murder?

Neither has set out to cause bodily harm tho. That's the first part of the chain of causation in my understanding? There has to be a first part in that chain.

 

[Miss_French]

And maybe Alford was in the bathroom after the first set?

No, because Sam Alford came out of the bathroom in time to see a man leaving the park at 12.19am, and the couple on Claremont claim to have heard screams about 10 minutes after that park exit.