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

[NorthernSoul]

I am currently conflicted as to whether there is enough evidence to convict PR of murder. I believe a rape conviction is a foregone conclusion. At this point we have not heard the summing up for the defence so I feel we are bound to be leaning more towards guilty having heard yesterday from the prosecution. I cannot say I feel PR is guilty of murder based solely on proof of rape and the fact that he had previously indulged in perverted activity. Nor can I condemn him simply on moral grounds as I believe in the process of law and my feelings about PR as a person are not relevant in law.
Obviously there is circumstantial evidence which makes his guilt entirely likely. However, as I understand it, this is not sufficient, the jury needs to be convinced there is no other reasonable scenario. I'm not sure this is the case. Still, they may well convict on the basis of their moral repugnance towards PR.
The issues that concern me are that we have no concrete evidence that PR went into the park, also the timing of the screams - the prosecution did not call 2 of the witnesses to these because they did not fit with their timeline and actually could be evidence that Libby was still alive after PR had left. Also, and I know some people do not agree with me on this, I just find it hard to believe that someone commits a murder in the space of a few minutes and then, aware that people may be combing the area for the victim, heads back out and roams around the streets acting as if absolutely nothing has happened. Possibly I feel this is unlikely because I don't have the mind of a psychopath but there y'go!

 

[Newthoughts]

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.

That is what the prosecution suggests - he just pulled them aside.

 

[Tortoise]

Ah you know I think I'm getting an insight into his later activity with the condom. He didn't use condoms before when he was out on the streets. Maybe it was to lay proof he masturbated there, but earlier, and had sperm on his hands when he touched her knickers. Hence he would argue sperm on her would be transfer. I'm not convinced he didn't think she might still be alive and report the rape, and where she got into his car. I also think he thought she would report it the same day and the condom might still be there.

I think he thought he had avoided cameras on the main road for her getting in the car, and she wouldn't be identified once actually in the car. It seems he did think it important to quickly get an alternative version out there with friends.

Why set up a version for her walking in the opposite direction of the park if he knew she could be found in the river? Did he assume, next day, that she would have left the park after he left, and be seen on camera back on the main road? Why tell police to check the cameras if he knew they would find she wasn't there.

I think it's possible he was setting up a version for Libby reporting rape, because it just seems too dumb even for him to tell friends anything about the encounter if he didn't need to put himself in the frame at that stage, especially if he's put her in the river thinking the water will clear away his DNA or to get rid of her body. But he's concerned with the rape, but not about setting up a version for her death. He could have told them he last saw her running into the park to set up an accidental death story.




MOO

 

[Newthoughts]

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.

She wasn't in York? I'm confused

 

[Cherwell]

He didn't use condoms before when he was out on the streets.

I thought he did. Didn't he leave one on a door handle,or something like that?

 

[Tortoise]

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

I'm thinking she got herself into difficulties by hiding from him and falling into the water. I haven't seen a convincing argument for why she couldn't have stumbled in, in her very confused, weakened, hypothermic and scared state, not even within the time he was there, so not being restricted by the 7.5 minutes. She didn't need to be screaming at all when she entered the river.

I'm prepared for a guilty verdict but I don't think it will be based on certainty of murder to the standard expected of juries.

 

[Newthoughts]

Ah you know I think I'm getting an insight into his later activity with the condom. He didn't use condoms before when he was out on the streets. Maybe it was to lay proof he masturbated there, but earlier, and had sperm on his hands when he touched her knickers. Hence he would argue sperm on her would be transfer. I'm not convinced he didn't think she might still be alive and report the rape, and where she got into his car. I also think he thought she would report it the same day and the condom might still be there.

I think he thought he had avoided cameras on the main road for her getting in the car, and she wouldn't be identified once actually in the car. It seems he did think it important to quickly get an alternative version out there with friends.

Why set up a version for her walking in the opposite direction of the park if he knew she could be found in the river? Did he assume, next day, that she would have left the park after he left, and be seen on camera back on the main road? Why tell police to check the cameras if he knew they would find she wasn't there.

I think it's possible he was setting up a version for Libby reporting rape, because it just seems too dumb even for him to tell friends anything about the encounter if he didn't need to put himself in the frame at that stage, especially if he's put her in the river thinking the water will clear away his DNA or to get rid of her body. But he's concerned with the rape, but not about setting up a version for her death. He could have told them he last saw her running into the park to set up an accidental death story.




MOO

If she reported rape that night his sperm would be found inside her as well as on her pants. If she'd died anywhere a PM would have been held and she'd have been tested for potential rapes or sexual activity. So The only realistic way to remove that evidence would be to wash it away. And the only realistic way to do that would be immerse in water.

 

[Tortoise]

I thought he did. Didn't he leave one on a door handle,or something like that?

Oh yes, I think it was on a toy.

I was thinking of when he left his semen on windows and a porch door. But you're right about that.

 

[ChiCubs2016]

I thought he did. Didn't he leave one on a door handle,or something like that?

And one next to a child’s toy in house?

 

[Tortoise]

If she reported rape that night his sperm would be found inside her as well as on her pants. If she'd died anywhere a PM would have been held and she'd have been tested for potential rapes or sexual activity. So The only realistic way to remove that evidence would be to wash it away. And the only realistic way to do that would be immerse in water.

I'm thinking of how he may have thought he could argue it, not the reality of it.

 

[ChiCubs2016]

Oh yes, I think it was on a toy.

I was thinking of when he left his semen on windows and a porch door. But you're right about that.

He left one on a door handle and another next to a child’s toy. Two separate instances.

 

[NorthernSoul]

She wasn't in York? I'm confused

I am making the general point that it is not unknown for inebriated people to fall into water and drown, in fact is is more common than you might imagine.

 

[Winterbells]

Ah you know I think I'm getting an insight into his later activity with the condom. He didn't use condoms before when he was out on the streets. Maybe it was to lay proof he masturbated there, but earlier, and had sperm on his hands when he touched her knickers. Hence he would argue sperm on her would be transfer. I'm not convinced he didn't think she might still be alive and report the rape, and where she got into his car. I also think he thought she would report it the same day and the condom might still be there.

I think he thought he had avoided cameras on the main road for her getting in the car, and she wouldn't be identified once actually in the car. It seems he did think it important to quickly get an alternative version out there with friends.

Why set up a version for her walking in the opposite direction of the park if he knew she could be found in the river? Did he assume, next day, that she would have left the park after he left, and be seen on camera back on the main road? Why tell police to check the cameras if he knew they would find she wasn't there.

I think it's possible he was setting up a version for Libby reporting rape, because it just seems too dumb even for him to tell friends anything about the encounter if he didn't need to put himself in the frame at that stage, especially if he's put her in the river thinking the water will clear away his DNA or to get rid of her body. But he's concerned with the rape, but not about setting up a version for her death. He could have told them he last saw her running into the park to set up an accidental death story.
MOO

That's really interesting.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I am making the general point that it is not unknown for inebriated people to fall into water and drown, in fact is is more common than you might imagine.

It’s very common, especially in places like York and Durham where you have a ton of students and a river that runs right through the city. We’ve had a couple of big York cases on here - Megan and Rory spring immediately to mind.

This isn’t quite the same though.

I go back to whether Libby knew the river was there and/or whether she could see it in front of her that night. I think it’s really unlikely she fell in herself based on local descriptions - up a steep bank, at which point she’d have seen it. I can’t recall which member did a late night visit but they said the river reflected factory lights from the opposite bank. Plus, we have her mums testimony that two things she was scared of were darkness and moving water.

 

[Newthoughts]

I thought he did. Didn't he leave one on a door handle,or something like that?

Yes he did on several occasions. Like besides children's toys

And after Libby when his attempt to stalk another woman fails he not only fills another condom on the corner of Alexandra Road but then loses it by the medical centre which is part way down Alexandra Road. Which in turn is on the other of Newlands to his road and another studenty street.

So where on Earth was he taking that.

Very confident his DNA will not link him to Libby

 

[NottReds50]

I'm thinking she got herself into difficulties by hiding from him and falling into the water. I haven't seen a convincing argument for why she couldn't have stumbled in, in her very confused, weakened, hypothermic and scared state, not even within the time he was there, so not being restricted by the 7.5 minutes. She didn't need to be screaming at all when she entered the river.

I'm prepared for a guilty verdict but I don't think it will be based on certainty of murder to the standard expected of juries.

So do you think she walked/ran from outside the park through it and into the river (which is where he says he left her), or do you think they actually made it to the park and she sadly stumbled in from there?

I don't see him chasing her that far either, she was in a poorly state, as the CCTV has shown. IMO

 

[catgreen]

I am making the general point that it is not unknown for inebriated people to fall into water and drown, in fact is is more common than you might imagine.

@NorthernSoul
Yes of course in the middle of town, where there are no barriers at all to the river (I'm from York) but the situation at the river we are considering here is nothing like that

 

[Ruthbullock]

That is what the prosecution suggests - he just pulled them aside.

Yes I realise that, but realistically we don’t know so he could have, but may not have- but for some reason he tells people (even before LS body is recovered) that she removed her underwear.

 

[Ruthbullock]

She wasn't in York? I'm confused

If you read the inquest article I shared this morning it would make sense

 

[Newthoughts]

I am making the general point that it is not unknown for inebriated people to fall into water and drown, in fact is is more common than you might imagine.

I know it is. Sorry I'm being daft. Sadly it is very common. But that is not the only factor.

Libby wasn't near water when PR picked her up. Nor was she near water where he claims to have left her. She was near houses. There was no reason for her to head to the river even in a confused state and in shock.

Nor was she very capable of walking. We've seen she struggled on a pavement. It's a quick route to the river if you're going straight there. But there is a lot of space to wobble and fall if you're not. And undergrowth to negotiate

Nor was the path to this particular river particularly clear or flat.

She doesn't just have to fall in and drown she has to get into the Humber Estuary without getting caught anywhere.

She would struggle to fall that far in.

And somebody had already been screaming close to that river when, allegedly she was with PR.

And a man that could have been PR was seen walking away from that river after those screams stopped when she was allegedly with PR.

And she was full of PRs DNA so if alive far as he knew she'd report him for rape yet he didn't once cover his back until presented with evidence.

And he returned to the park later despite claiming he left her on a residential street which is the last place I would expect a girl that wants her mum to head.

On balance of probability considering all the evidence suggests PR put her in the river. The search for reasonable doubts doesn't find any that can then go on to explain every single other thing

Edited by me to remove error