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

[Ruthbullock]

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

The two separate charges of rape and murder

 

[Dotta]

The two separate charges of rape and murder

Thank you - I wasn't sure. So my prediction is (based on evidence described on Websleuths) that he will be charged on rape and acquitted on murder. He is locked for 8 years for his previous crimes. With the rape sentence (not concurrent I think) he will spend looooong time behind bars and then be deported to Poland. That's MO

 

[RosalindaA]

Have been here since the beginning but unfortunately not able to give all the posts enough time to really assess all the detailed analyses of the timings, geography and witness evidence which I agree is important to this case. I admit I come at cases from an emotional viewpoint (and I think most people also feel this way about this case because of the very strong connection that Libby's tragic story has made with all of us). And I tend to focus on the perpetrator's psychology and what the crime tells us about him and what he is likely to go on to do. I am no expert and tbh shy sometimes shy away from the serial rapists/murderers because they are so disturbing. But they are hard to avoid among the podcasts and true crime shows that I watch and the investigations and how they are caught are fascinating.

I can remember being so relieved when Libby's body was found, chiefly for her family of course but also that it should help the case, which indeed it did. Of course it has always been common for many of this type of killer to place their victims in water (outside, or to put the victim in their own bath) to destroy evidence even before DNA. Or to prevent the victim being found altogether. Not something I like thinking about but the female body does have the ability to preserve DNA within the (virtually sealed) uterus which I am wondering if that is where the pathologist extracted the evidence from. So a rape conviction is a given as I am sure consent was not possible ( or likely) owing to Libby's dire condition at the time and also because I am totally confident that PR is a rapist and that was his intent which I think is clearly shown by his actions that night towards Libby and would be a common trajectory/escalation of his previous criminal sexual offending.

As to the murder charge, to me it makes more sense that PR put Libby into the river, than she just happened to end up there. Yes, drunken people often stumble into water but I don't know of another case where a rape victim has been known to do this. I think it is reasonable to assume that the rapist caused this in the pattern of the crime. And then you have the colossal amount of lies PR has told to fit the evidence, which strongly suggests to me that I am correct in assuming that he is lying about the totality of what he did to Libby.

 

[Jenesaisquoi]

Would PR have had training in his job regarding safety around freezing conditions (for himself, colleagues and the meat he is handling) that he ought to be able to apply to Libby being in contact with freezing conditions during the rape.

 

[Steve2021]

Some have suggested PR may have left Libby alive in the park and that either she fell in the river, or PR returned to find her dead and put her in the river, in which case it (probably) isn't murder. However whilst this is possible surely he has completely snookered himself from the jury considering this by stating he never entered the park? So is not his only hope the jury conclude it is reasonably possible Libby either found her own way to and then fell into the river, or was abducted by someone else who put her in it. If we take the Claremont witnesses evidence of screams being heard at 12.30 she'd have to have got near to the river in the 11 minutes since PR left. If we use Mr Alford's timings she'd have to have got there in no more than 4 (he awoke at 12.14, heard a scream 1-2 minutes later, screams lasted 4-7 minutes).

Surely it's not a runner to conclude there were 2 sets of screams. Mr Alford was much closer and very much on his guard, so could hardly miss hearing a 2nd set.

 

[C.greek]

Some have suggested PR may have left Libby alive in the park and that either she fell in the river, or PR returned to find her dead and put her in the river, in which case it (probably) isn't murder. However whilst this is possible surely he has completely snookered himself from the jury considering this by stating he never entered the park? So is not his only hope the jury conclude it is reasonably possible Libby either found her own way to and then fell into the river, or was abducted by someone else who put her in it. If we take the Claremont witnesses evidence of screams being heard at 12.30 she'd have to have got near to the river in the 11 minutes since PR left. If we use Mr Alford's timings she'd have to have got there in no more than 3 (he awoke at 12.14, heard a scream 1-2 minutes later, screams lasted 4-7 minutes).

Surely it's not a runner to conclude there were 2 sets of screams. Mr Alford was much closer and very much on his guard, so could hardly miss hearing a 2nd set.

Are you suggesting there were or were not two separate sets of screams?

 

[Steve2021]

It's not entirely obvious to me how the police knew PR had been to Oak Road or the park on any occasion that night. We've seen CCTV of him turning from Beverley Road into Berresford but there's many turnings between there and his destination. I don't recall seeing anything from then on. Perhaps they only know because he told them?.....in which case he must be kicking himself now that he didn't lie about that as well.

 

[RosalindaA]

Part 2!

So I do see why some people here have reservations about a conviction for murder. The absence of a clear cause of death is unfortunate and PR does not seem to have used a weapon. I think it is even possible that he was expecting to perpetrate his usual offences that night. But again, given the opportunity, this type of offender will try out his fantasies (actual rape) if he thinks he can get away with it, ie with a very vulnerable victim. PR has shown us that he is entirely typical of this type of man, not that intelligent but well capable of the criminal cunning type of behaviour, always deceitful and able to make up a self-serving lie about everything, blame the victim and show a TOTAL absence of any acknowledgement that she is a human being and the effect of his disgusting behaviour on her and all the women he victimized and robbed of their peace of mind and safety. This troubles him NOT,what does worry him is that he will have to pay for his enjoyments with prison time.
I've no doubt that there are reasons for his behaviour, perhaps things even out of his control, bad genes, bad brain wiring, a hormonal imbalance, perhaps he was even abused himself. There's always a reason, but the problem is there is zero evidence that this type of offender can be rehabilitated and the risk of more victims is as high as can be. I don't think PR will ever put anything above his own needs, he has no conscience about his victims whatsoever. I have even seen some paedophiles talk about how they recognise they have to control their abnormal feelings for the sake of victims, I even believe one or two of them, but it is very rare.
So, were I on the jury, it's a yes to the murder charge for me, it's the most likely scenario to me given the totality of the evidence, pattern of the crime/chain of events and the clearly revealed character of the perpetrator. And the longer sentence I have the opportunity to give him, I would feel I have the moral obligation to protect women and girls from him. Morally I think we can agree he is responsible for Libby's death and why shouldn't morals, natural justice and protection of society be weighed up in a verdict and tilt the scales?

 

[Steve2021]

Are you suggesting there were or were not two separate sets of screams?

I'm suggesting there can't have been 2 sets as Mr Alford inevitably being on high alert after the 1st that he heard, would have heard the 2nd had there been a 2nd.

 

[tigerowl]

Isn't it interesting how we are all using the same set of information put before us and all drawing different conclusions. The more some people hear, the more they think he killed Libby. The more I hear, the less I think he did it.

I've never been on a jury but I always assumed the majority of cases would be cut and dried and that more or less everyone would agree. This has completely made me change my mind!

 

[Steve2021]

RosalindaA I totally agree that were it not for PR Libby would be alive today. His unlawful actions have either directly or indirectly resulted in her death. Quite what the sequence of events was is something none of us need to know, but my hope is that it becomes sufficiently clear for Libby's family, for them to feel justice has been done, and should PR be found guilty that they don't have to endure years of appeals and applications to overturn the verdict.

 

[ChiCubs2016]

I've been saying this for days. It's very possible, in my book, that this is what he did. He killed, then, in a matter of a second or two, raped Libby. Although not possible to prove, for me, that makes the two crimes inextricably linked. If he's guity of one, then he's guilty of the other. All of his crimes involve a sick twist.

My apologies @Winterbells for missing you have said this. Much respect to you and this theory.

 

[NorthernSoul]

Isn't it interesting how we are all using the same set of information put before us and all drawing different conclusions. The more some people hear, the more they think he killed Libby. The more I hear, the less I think he did it.

I've never been on a jury but I always assumed the majority of cases would be cut and dried and that more or less everyone would agree. This has completely made me change my mind!

I have been called for Jury Service twice and one of the trials was a rape trial. You are not allowed to discuss what went on in the Jury room but I can talk about the trial and say the person was found guilty. He had spun a web of lies even more outlandish than PR and the judge stated during sentencing that his explanations had been ridiculous. It seems these perpetrators can be their own worst enemies. It was a bit different to this case in that there was more physical evidence but you are right tigerowl the more you look into something the more complex it can seem and people's perceptions are all different. Being on a Jury is much like being on this forum except you all have to try and reach a consensus - you can imagine that's not easy!

 

[Winterbells]

My apologies @Winterbells for missing you have said this. Much respect to you and this theory.

@ChiCubs2016 oh nooo please don’t apologise! I wasn’t protesting, just agreeing with the proposition as in ‘me too, I’ve been thinking this as well’.

 

[Lyall0814]

Isn't it interesting how we are all using the same set of information put before us and all drawing different conclusions. The more some people hear, the more they think he killed Libby. The more I hear, the less I think he did it.

I've never been on a jury but I always assumed the majority of cases would be cut and dried and that more or less everyone would agree. This has completely made me change my mind!

I'm guessing you're not a Rumpole of the Bailey or Kavanagh QC fan then

 

[tigerowl]

Haha, no! I'm not a crime fan in general (although I have just binged Unforgotten and I loved it) I am only here as I am interested in this case as I am local (literally live 5 mins away from PRs house in one direction and 5 mins from Libby's bench in the other) and wanted to learn more about it.

I have found this forum fascinating -so thanks everyone.

 

[Dotta]

Part 2!

So I do see why some people here have reservations about a conviction for murder. The absence of a clear cause of death is unfortunate and PR does not seem to have used a weapon. I think it is even possible that he was expecting to perpetrate his usual offences that night. But again, given the opportunity, this type of offender will try out his fantasies (actual rape) if he thinks he can get away with it, ie with a very vulnerable victim. PR has shown us that he is entirely typical of this type of man, not that intelligent but well capable of the criminal cunning type of behaviour, always deceitful and able to make up a self-serving lie about everything, blame the victim and show a TOTAL absence of any acknowledgement that she is a human being and the effect of his disgusting behaviour on her and all the women he victimized and robbed of their peace of mind and safety. This troubles him NOT,what does worry him is that he will have to pay for his enjoyments with prison time.
I've no doubt that there are reasons for his behaviour, perhaps things even out of his control, bad genes, bad brain wiring, a hormonal imbalance, perhaps he was even abused himself. There's always a reason, but the problem is there is zero evidence that this type of offender can be rehabilitated and the risk of more victims is as high as can be. I don't think PR will ever put anything above his own needs, he has no conscience about his victims whatsoever. I have even seen some paedophiles talk about how they recognise they have to control their abnormal feelings for the sake of victims, I even believe one or two of them, but it is very rare.
So, were I on the jury, it's a yes to the murder charge for me, it's the most likely scenario to me given the totality of the evidence, pattern of the crime/chain of events and the clearly revealed character of the perpetrator. And the longer sentence I have the opportunity to give him, I would feel I have the moral obligation to protect women and girls from him. Morally I think we can agree he is responsible for Libby's death and why shouldn't morals, natural justice and protection of society be weighed up in a verdict and tilt the scales?

Rosalinda RE rehabilitation of sexually deviant criminals - I once read (in Polish press I think) that the only effective therapy is so called "chemical castration" meaning application of drugs that drastically lower the level of testosterone. The expert said nothing else works.

 

[Officer Dibble]

Rosalinda RE rehabilitation of sexually deviant criminals - I once read (in Polish press I think) that the only effective therapy is so called "chemical castration" meaning application of drugs that drastically lower the level of testosterone. The expert said nothing else works.

I prefer chop their bits off personally. JMO

 

[Dotta]

I prefer chop their bits off personally. JMO

Ha haha You are cruel hihihi

 

[JosieJo]

Just catching up on todays posts

It seems when discussing the validity of the scream witnesses (which imo are the same screams) its ignored that the timing of both screams are when PR is at his car or leaving.
So although the overall sequence of events Sam witnessed would fit the prosecution version...timing doesn't...even though Sam allowed for his own variation due to memory

There is no evidence that puts PR inside the park ...only the possibility that a man seen in the park could be him ..likelihood is not good enough

How PR got her far enough into the park without Sam hearing screams is puzzling ...if she did scream as being dragged into the park in theory she would have been nearer to his house at that point...dragging a woman a long distance and keeping her quiet at the same time would be difficult