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

[Skigh]

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

She made her own way on to the street. She was taken to the park .
Had she fallen unconscious on the street an ambulance would have been called.Had she stayed on the street her friends would more than likely have found her.

 

[C.greek]

As somebody else has noted here before regarding the time on mobiles: if Sam Alford said he heard the first set of screams at 12.15 based on his mobile time, it could well be that his time was off by 1-2 minutes, meaning 12.13 for the cctv camera's time. My phone has 17.11, my daughter's 17.12 and we are on a different network. Such small time differences I am sure would have been thought through by the prosecution. The reason that the prosecution did not use the other couple's witness testimony could be that they said "around 12.30" (the around is the important bit not the actual time) so their timing could well be off by the time they actually checked the time. I doubt the first thing that occurs to anyone when hearing something out of the ordinary would be to check the time. Whereas Mr Alford did have a good reason to check it. JMO

 

[Ruthbullock]

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.

But unfortunately due to the time in the water there is no evidence of bodily harm being caused in this case either. More often than not it is emotional harm and damage in rape cases, this does not cause a chain of events that trigger a death. The link I shared the other day which had the summaries of many cases of the women who couldn’t consent- the intent to cause bodily harm was very obvious either due to severe violence in the act of rape or by feeding them drugs and alcohol which then led to their death and even in those cases, there were far to many who were still found not guilty or guilty of manslaughter.

 

[Winterbells]

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.

I agree. And I think it's worth turning the situation on its head (i.e. look at an 'innocent' scenario like the one I've described) to go through exactly how and why a jury can decide whether PR is guilty of one or both crimes.

 

[Newthoughts]

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.

I think I meant to answer your point on this earlier when I posted a very long response to @Steve2021 listing mine

Surely the balance of probabilities is all we ever have in any trial. We're never going to have 100% certainty or even 99%.

That is why ALL explanations for ALL evidence has to be considered against other explanations. A trial has to look at everything.

So when we see PR put something in his car there is a probability it's Libby. That probability is raised by finding her watch and the previous CCTV of her and him on the road. So we're sure beyond reasonable doubt even tho there could still be doubt. She could have lost her watch before that night for example, in that exact spot, but it's less likely.

You have look at each piece because one piece - eg PRs car at the park - increases or decreases the probability of another piece. For example that he is the man seen walking away. If that man looked significantly different that would reduce that probability of it being PR to close up zero. But has it stands he doesn't look different

If you take the whole evening and try to find alternative explanations ,- adding in each piece of evidence I think on balance the alternatives fall down. That included every piece of evidence. His behaviour, his reason for being out, screams, his testimony. Everything.

That's my opinion based on everything we've heard here. Not my opinion from just one piece of evidence but on the probabilities of each one as a chain.

The jury will have more. They're better placed. They will also have a better idea of he how those will be interpreted to fit the law.

Just my opinions

Edited to state those are my opinions and how I looked at the case

 

[Winterbells]

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.

So first the jury has to be confident that he set out to cause Libby bodily harm.

 

[Newthoughts]

I agree. And I think it's worth turning the situation on its head (i.e. look at an 'innocent' scenario like the one I've described) to go through exactly how and why a jury can decide whether PR is guilty of one or both crimes.

I think her vulnerable state plus DNA makes rape a certainty.

 

[Newthoughts]

But unfortunately due to the time in the water there is no evidence of bodily harm being caused in this case either. More often than not it is emotional harm and damage in rape cases, this does not cause a chain of events that trigger a death. The link I shared the other day which had the summaries of many cases of the women who couldn’t consent- the intent to cause bodily harm was very obvious either due to severe violence in the act of rape or by feeding them drugs and alcohol which then led to their death and even in those cases, there were far to many who were still found not guilty or guilty of manslaughter.

But there is evidence of bodily harm in the rape

 

[Winterbells]

I think her vulnerable state plus DNA makes rape a certainty.

Of course I agree with you. Libby was too drunk to give informed consent. Or she was already dead when the rape happened.

 

[Skigh]

She was lying on the pavement inadequatelely clothed (bare legs, tennis shoes, no cap, no gloves) in freezing weather, completely intoxicated and not aware of her surroundings - Well I think it was obvious that some services should be called.

Looking back in retrospect we can all make that judgement,and I am sure the people who tried to help her wish they did stay longer with her or do something more. They made their assessment of what to do after being with her .

 

[Winterbells]

Imagining if Libby hadn't been drunk, and all the other details were the same, and she still ended up dead in the river, with evidence of PR's semen inside her. What would the jury be likely to conclude then?

 

[Newthoughts]

It could do with a legal expert to explain the murder definition properly.

 

[Cherwell]

It could do with a legal expert to explain the murder definition properly.

I'm sure Mr Jitty will be along in due course.

 

[porkypies]

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.

DBM

 

[Newthoughts]

I'm sure Mr Jitty will be along in due course.

Good. He'll make sense of it for us cos it's hurting my head

 

[astheworldfallsdown]

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

None of them removed her from the area, raped and murdered her and dumped her in the river either. Her friends were out looking for her quickly and would have found her if that dirty sex criminal hadn't taken her to the fields. All JMO

 

[Dotta]

None of them removed her from the area, raped and murdered her and dumped her in the river either. Her friends were out looking for her quickly and would have found her if that dirty sex criminal hadn't taken her to the fields. All JMO

I agree. I was simply stating a point of leaving a person unattended

 

[NorthernSoul]

I think I meant to answer your point on this earlier when I posted a very long response to @Steve2021 listing mine

Surely the balance of probabilities is all we ever have in any trial. We're never going to have 100% certainty or even 99%.

That is why ALL explanations for ALL evidence has to be considered against other explanations. A trial has to look at everything.

So when we see PR put something in his car there is a probability it's Libby. That probability is raised by finding her watch and the previous CCTV of her and him on the road. So we're sure beyond reasonable doubt even tho there could still be doubt. She could have lost her watch before that night for example, in that exact spot, but it's less likely.

You have look at each piece because one piece - eg PRs car at the park - increases or decreases the probability of another piece. For example that he is the man seen walking away. If that man looked significantly different that would reduce that probability of it being PR to close up zero. But has it stands he doesn't look different

If you take the whole evening and try to find alternative explanations ,- adding in each piece of evidence I think on balance the alternatives fall down. That included every piece of evidence. His behaviour, his reason for being out, screams, his testimony. Everything.

That's my opinion based on everything we've heard here. Not my opinion from just one piece of evidence but on the probabilities of each one as a chain.

The jury will have more. They're better placed. They will also have a better idea of he how those will be interpreted to fit the law.

Just my opinions

Edited to state those are my opinions and how I looked at the case

Understand what you are saying. I do believe the jury must have a lot more information than we do as, as other people have mentioned for example that we have not seen the footage of Libby and PR arriving at the park yet it would seem that footage exists. I am very interested to see what transpires this coming week.
Might I say while I am on that I am also very happy I found this forum with so many people with interesting points of view. I have learned a lot from everyone's comments.

 

[Tortoise]

I don't see how rape can be conflated with an act of murder.

Intentional asphyxiation, strangulation, or other life threatening injury inflicted during a rape, of course yes.

Rape is a separate charge on the sheet from the murder and not in the alternative to murder, carrying its own sentence.

MOO

 

[Dotta]

I don't see how rape can be conflated with an act of murder.

Intentional asphyxiation, strangulation, or other life threatening injury inflicted during a rape, of course yes.

Rape is a separate charge on the sheet from the murder and not in the alternative to murder, carrying its own sentence.

MOO

May I ask a question? Is this trial both for rape and murder or for murder only?