UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #23

[mrazda71]

More torture for her parents and loved ones having to wait a bit longer. I feel terrible for them

True ... but, they may also be glad of a day off to recover from yesterday.

Fingers crossed that this particular part of their ordeal will be over soon.

 

[Skigh]

10:37
Snow halts trial
The trial will not go ahead today due to the wintry weather.

There have been heavy snowfall in Sheffiled where the trial is taking place.

A number of jurors have not been able to make it in today.

Hopefully, the trial should resume again tomorrow.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/live-libby-squire-murder-trial-49509

Hope you enjoy your day off ,Jamjim. Do you have snow where you are?

 

[jamjim]

Hope you enjoy your day off ,Jamjim. Do you have snow where you are?

No snow here down South, just rain! We got some at the weekend but it had rained all morning, so didn’t set!

 

[mrjitty]

It's frustrating not to have the full prosecution summing up - but here goes at half time in the summing up.

Based on the circumstantial evidence we have, I feel murder is proven. No one thing proves it, but taken all together, i agree with the prosecution submission that there are just too many coincidences.

Especially I think the accused hung himself with his stupid testimony. Even in his 5th (LOL) version, he is still clearly hiding what really happened that night. IMO this was a huge tactical mistake. If he was going to take the stand, he needed to reveal some truth and take the jury into his confidence - that clears the space to make the play "yes i did this bad thing but not the murder thing". As he left it, it's clear he did the bad thing, and he is hiding even more bad things. No prizes for guessing what those bad things were.

The only thing that gives me pause is @Tortoise 's excellent reverse chrono walk through of the scream evidence. This gets all very Pistorius in trying to reconcile witnesses and 3 different clocks.

My problem is, without more detail I find it hard to resolve.

I think the defence's problem is they have a lot of wild speculation about what might have happened, but also the defence knows more things that happened that they will not tell us.

In that situation, I think the accused's testimony can't be relied on - rather the defence has to point to established facts at trial, which cast substantial doubt on murder. So compared the screams to the clock like @Tortoise - I am thinking detailed, maps, timings, average pace for running/walking - some kind of technical tour de force.

Trouble is, they kind of harmed that approach by testifying, because their case is always that the accused was never in the park in the first place, so that leaves you arguing "... but even if he was ..." which is not highly convincing IMO.

I suspect their timeline evidence will instead be rather vague. The accused was never in the park. He left, she was heard screaming later etc - but again it is undercut by him now claiming to have heard her screaming while he was there - which kind of cuts across trying to rely on those defence witnesses.

All of that, at the end of the day, leaves me wondering if the reason the defence can't create a coherent timeline is because he did in fact murder her while she was screaming, just like the witness heard.

 

[mrjitty]

Final point on the knickers.

This has significance somehow, as he set it up in his discussions with friends, and in his testimony, and we know it is part of his MO. Yet Libby was found with them on.

What is the point of this strange detail? It's clearly a core part of his lies that he sought to build into a backstory.

Did he put them back on her? Was it his idea that she would be found with them on so no one would suspect a rape?

 

[Officer Dibble]

https://twitter.com/sophcorcoran/status/1356548964716281863?s=19

Trial will not sit today.

oh! Snow??

 

[amber20]

It seems like so many here are set on the fact PR is a murderer, refusing to accept other possibilities, even though the evidence doesn't quite line up with that.

There's no way I want PR back on the streets. He is obviously a sexual predator. However, the evidence in this case is lacking in proving his guilt as a murderer. It's proven he's a rapist, regardless whether Libby 'consented' (I don't believe she did) or not, she was in no fit state to consent so what he did was rape.

I fail to see what proves he is a murderer, however. The screams heard by the witnesses just don't add up to PR having raped and killed Libby before leaving. I found it a massive leap anyway- from masturbating in the street to murder? I'm sure it's not unheard of but it is a leap imo. Masturbating in the street to rape, however, seems pretty logical and its been proven that happened.

It just doesn't add up to me. I'm sure PR will go down for murder but I'm really doubtful that he did it... Although, taking her to the playing fields led to her death so I guess he is responsible either way.

 

[VicBlazey]

oh! Snow??

Sadly yes. Must have been pretty bad there. We had some last night but nothing major (I'm about 55 miles away on the other side of the hills!)

 

[Tortoise]

Final point on the knickers.

This has significance somehow, as he set it up in his discussions with friends, and in his testimony, and we know it is part of his MO. Yet Libby was found with them on.

What is the point of this strange detail? It's clearly a core part of his lies that he sort to build into a backstory.

Did he put them back on her? Was it his idea that she would be found with them on so no one would suspect a rape?

The problem is that if he put her in the water to wash away his DNA then he might expect his DNA from touching the knickers to be washed away too.

If he put her in the water thinking her body would be washed out to sea forever then he has no reason to be setting any back story about touching her knickers. He could have said she scratched him because she was behaving weirdly and aggressively through drink.

So I'm not sure he knew they were on her, which adds in a suspicion for me that she did get away from him.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Wanted to share this to illustrate how people do accidentally fall down sloped riverbanks- this article was in our local paper yesterday. This man had worked in that very river bank for many many years, knew it like the back of his hand and still accidentally slipped down it and it sadly led to his death. I’m not posting to cause more discussion, merely to illustrate that it can and does happen (it doesn’t require a straight drop downwards, a gentle but muddy slope is just as dangerous).
Much-loved ferryman drowned in river bank accident, inquest hears

 

[mrjitty]

The problem is that if he put her in the water to wash away his DNA then he might expect his DNA from touching the knickers to be washed away too.

If he put her in the water thinking her body would be washed out to sea forever then he has no reason to be setting any back story about touching her knickers. He could have said she scratched him because she was behaving weirdly and aggressively through drink.

So I'm not sure he knew they were on her, which adds in a suspicion for me that she did get away from him.

I am sort of taking the Mr Fossil approach here. So not what would his version look like later - but what might it have been in the first frenzied minutes?

So maybe his idea is, if he pulls the knickers up, throws her in the river, and then she is later found, no one will think to look for a rape, and no one will connect it with him? The body will be cleaned up, and he can clean his car.

Then later when he thinks further - the CCTV - he creates a back story for her being in his car, and for sexual activity - just in case?

I suspect by that time he was worried by all the publicity, and realised he might be IDed by his car?

I suspect this is also where the taxi driver story comes from ...

 

[mrjitty]

So I'm not sure he knew they were on her, which adds in a suspicion for me that she did get away from him.

This is a good take.

I wonder that as well - maybe she did get away, and he chased her into the river. Then he runs back - and she is screaming from the water.

 

[Steve2021]

I'm local (work on Beverley Road, regularly walk my dog and toddler on ORPF) and have no issue either. I have more issue after seeing CCTV of Libby and how much difficulty she was having walking, with the idea that she was able to get herself in to the river.

I agree. Personally i find no trouble in summarily dismissing the possibilities Libby was left in the road and found her way to the river unaided and accidentally or deliberately went in. That leaves a. PR was with her in the park, b. a 3rd party abducted her from the road and took her to the river. As to b. Having heard the scream witnesses unless I considered the timings of SA to be less probable than the Claremonts I would then dismiss b. as there would be so little time to get her there from when PR drove off to when SA heard the screams. That then brings me back to a. and to consider 1. PR put Libby in the river, 2. A 3rd party put her in, 3. PR left her near it and she fell in. As to get here I have necessarily concluded PR lied and did take her into the park I don't feel I could reliably consider scenario 3. That just leaves 2. To eliminate that i'd have to see a full transcript of the evidence rather than the edited bits and bobs reported, but as it's statistically remote I'd need something to suggest it was more than a theoretical possibility.

Contrast that with the issue of could PR accomplish everything in just 7.5 minutes. Yes this may well mean moving much faster than the average rapist or murderer in such circumstances would be expected to, but it seems to me to be mathematically possible, so I dont actually think it's relevant to the jury's decision making process. In other words are they going to say I know he could have done it all in 7.5 minutes but most people would take longer so we must assume he didn't...I don't think so.

Moreso we have seen throughout PR is not a man who dithers by nature, as someone here said he moves about with a speed and purpose as if he's on a mission.

 

[Newthoughts]

Final point on the knickers.

This has significance somehow, as he set it up in his discussions with friends, and in his testimony, and we know it is part of his MO. Yet Libby was found with them on.

What is the point of this strange detail? It's clearly a core part of his lies that he sought to build into a backstory.

Did he put them back on her? Was it his idea that she would be found with them on so no one would suspect a rape?

The prosecution suggest he didn't bother to remove them just pulled them out the way. She was still wearing her shoes which would have made it more difficult to both remove and replace them

They did point out how difficult it would be in her state to replace them with her shoes on.

 

[NorthernSoul]

The problem is that if he put her in the water to wash away his DNA then he might expect his DNA from touching the knickers to be washed away too.

If he put her in the water thinking her body would be washed out to sea forever then he has no reason to be setting any back story about touching her knickers. He could have said she scratched him because she was behaving weirdly and aggressively through drink.

So I'm not sure he knew they were on her, which adds in a suspicion for me that she did get away from him.

I have been thinking this as well! As others have said there is something important, some reason why he wants to mention what happened with the knickers. It's as if he is trying to explain why she would be found with knickers off - ie trying to blame Libby for it - when in actual fact her knickers were found to be on. Is it possible he did not know she was found with her knickers on because if so I would suggest this is possibly evidence he left her with them off and she may have put them back on.

 

[NorthernSoul]

Wanted to share this to illustrate how people do accidentally fall down sloped riverbanks- this article was in our local paper yesterday. This man had worked in that very river bank for many many years, knew it like the back of his hand and still accidentally slipped down it and it sadly led to his death. I’m not posting to cause more discussion, merely to illustrate that it can and does happen (it doesn’t require a straight drop downwards, a gentle but muddy slope is just as dangerous).
Much-loved ferryman drowned in river bank accident, inquest hears

In York there have been numerous incidents of young people falling into the river which flows through the city and drowning, almost always after a night out drinking.

 

[Ruthbullock]

The prosecution suggest he didn't bother to remove them just pulled them out the way. She was still wearing her shoes which would have made it more difficult to both remove and replace them

They did point out how difficult it would be in her state to replace them with her shoes on.

I’m not sure someone who is committing rape is bothered by the formality of removing underwear in the usual manner over shoes. They could remove them in a different manner, but then it is unlikely they would be put back on. The underwear does form part of his backstory from the beginning (before he was even a suspect) and the fact his story involved her knickers being removed must have served some purpose in his twisted tale.

 

[Ruthbullock]

In York there have been numerous incidents of young people falling into the river which flows through the city and drowning, almost always after a night out drinking.

I know, I live there. This wasn’t in the centre of York, but rather out in the countryside and did not involve alcohol but rather someone familiar with the slopes of the riverbank at dusk who slipped. Locals could maybe compare banks (the photo shows what the riverbanks are like along that stretch)

 

[Newthoughts]

I have been thinking this as well! As others have said there is something important, some reason why he wants to mention what happened with the knickers. It's as if he is trying to explain why she would be found with knickers off - ie trying to blame Libby for it - when in actual fact her knickers were found to be on. Is it possible he did not know she was found with her knickers on because if so I would suggest this is possibly evidence he left her with them off and she may have put them back on.

No because in other stories to the police rather than his mate he says she walks away with them or clutching them. The implication being she has to have them with her.

If the sex was 'consensual' they'd have been removed. And she would have to have had them with her if she was wearing them if she'd be found with them on. So it suggests to me he knew where they were should she be found.

He assumed no DNA would link her to him

 

[Joolz1975]

The problem is that if he put her in the water to wash away his DNA then he might expect his DNA from touching the knickers to be washed away too.

If he put her in the water thinking her body would be washed out to sea forever then he has no reason to be setting any back story about touching her knickers. He could have said she scratched him because she was behaving weirdly and aggressively through drink.

So I'm not sure he knew they were on her, which adds in a suspicion for me that she did get away from him.

What are you thinking Tortoise? That she wandered into the river or another person involved?