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

[Steve2021]

You've all made so many good points during this discussion. Whilst it's been fractious occasionally I've seen nothing to suggest other than everyone has been driven solely by a determination to establish exactly what happened and we should always try to remember that rather than seek to criticise. I believe many of you are with me in that if he left her in the park in a position of peril, isolated and alone, and she accidentally fell in, that whilst this isn't murder he deserves to be punished as if it were.

 

[Tortoise]

I think @LastSeenWearing & @Tortoise ’s points are plausible re the screams being because Libby was heading towards water against her will or was already in the water. I also don’t definitively think we can say that the entry point was near the boathouse.

I don’t see how the river can interrupt the chain of causation;it was there during PR’s other visits, it hasn’t suddenly appeared. If you take someone to a place to commit a crime against them isn’t it foreseeable that they may attempt to escape that harm? Isn’t it foreseeable that a consequence of taking a drunk young woman to a dark place containing both a river & a pond is that entering the water as a result of fleeing is a possible outcome which is likely to be fatal given the temperatures & intoxication? Isn’t this recklessness indicative of oblique intention & therefore murder?

I think you're mixing me up with someone else. I haven't said anything about being near the river against her will or screaming in the water.

 

[Sooty]

I have always wondered, because she was likely suffering from quite severe hypothermia by this time, whether or not she was experiencing the ‘hide and die’ phenomenon. By searching for somewhere to ‘burrow’ she came across the river unexpectedly and didn’t have the coordination/ strength/ was too poorly to turn things around for herself. In this scenario she would likely be quickly overwhelmed by exhaustion and her Body would begin to ‘shut down’ to protect her vital organs for as long as possible. Unconsciousness would likely follow. I think this is very plausible given what we can determine about that evening, and would explain why she headed into the darkness, rather than towards the houses.

Hypothermia causes extreme confusion as we know and trying to find rational or best fit scenarios may not be taking consideration of the known extremes in patterns of behaviour when one is severely hypothermic

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

I have always wondered if, because she was likely suffering from quite severe hypothermia by this time, whether or not she was experiencing the ‘hide and die’ phenomenon. By searching for somewhere to ‘burrow’ she came across the river unexpectedly and didn’t have the coordination/ strength/ was too poorly to turn things around for herself. I think this is very plausible and would explain why she headed into the darkness, rather than towards the houses. MOO

It could also explain why her top and jacket were missing, paradoxical undressing. It must be quite difficult for a top with long sleeves to come off unless it was ripped off by snagging in the river.

paradoxical undressing

 

[Skigh]

The discussions above about Libby possibly screaming in the river. I mentioned 2 years ago that I thought she was screaming from being in the river (by however means she got there). Yes I know her mum said she was scared of water and darkness. Now we know more about PR's movements and returns to the park, could she have got herself out of the river, then collapsed from previous plus now new levels of hypothermia and then did PR on one of his return visits put her back in the river?

I personally do not think she fell in the river,but if she did I do not think she would be screaming,I think she would be in too much shock. I do not think,with waterlogged clothes, she would be able to get herself out of the river.
I still believe she was put in the river by PR.

 

[catgreen]

To clarify the example I shared from yesterday was in a york paper, not in york. It was at Beningborough and the river slopes are very similar, if not identical, to the banks where LS went in.

yes I know but I wasnt replying to you, I was replying to someone else

 

[CoverMeCagney]

You've all made so many good points during this discussion. Whilst it's been fractious occasionally I've seen nothing to suggest other than everyone has been driven solely by a determination to establish exactly what happened and we should always try to remember that rather than seek to criticise. I believe many of you are with me in that if he left her in the park in a position of peril, isolated and alone, and she accidentally fell in, that whilst this isn't murder he deserves to be punished as if it were.

I agree. I’ll be extremely disappointed with anything less than guilty of rape and manslaughter.

I’d also like his sentence to run consecutively, and not concurrently with his previous sentence.

 

[Skigh]

I agree. I’ll be extremely disappointed with anything less than guilty of rape and manslaughter.

I’d also like his sentence to run consecutively, and not concurrently with his previous sentence.

Same here. If he is convicted for rape and manslaughter ,could he be given two separate sentences,one for the rape and another for manslaughter?

 

[tigerowl]

I would just like to clarify that I have mentioned many times that I do not believe PR murdered Libby. I do however, find him responsible for her death by taking her away from relative safety and into a high risk area and raping and traumatising her. So I still hope he pays for his crimes.

 

[Skigh]

I would just like to clarify that I have mentioned many times that I do not believe PR murdered Libby. I do however, find him responsible for her death by taking her away from relative safety and into a high risk area and raping and traumatising her. So I still hope he pays for his crimes.

If it was not Libby,it would have been a different girl that night or another night.

 

[astheworldfallsdown]

Same here. If he is convicted for rape and manslaughter ,could he be given two separate sentences,one for the rape and another for manslaughter?

If he can be given consecutive sentences, can they start after his current sentences for his sex crimes finish? @mrjitty can you help with this one?

 

[LastSeenWearing]

I agree. I’ll be extremely disappointed with anything less than guilty of rape and manslaughter.

I’d also like his sentence to run consecutively, and not concurrently with his previous sentence.

Would the jury be permitted to find PR guilty of manslaughter if there was not enough evidence he had put Libby in the river but enough evidence to show by taking her to ORPF he had put her in grave danger with resulting death? I remember someone posted that manslaughter had not been put on the table but are the jury still allowed to find PR guilty of manslaughter?

 

[martenwearer]

I personally do not think she fell in the river,but if she did I do not think she would be screaming,I think she would be in too much shock. I do not think,with waterlogged clothes, she would be able to get herself out of the river.
I still believe she was put in the river by PR.

Agreed. You also can’t scream when you experience cold water shock. Someone posted a good link to it earlier on in the threads

 

[Zazie]

Was it PR who 'walked away clutching them' after the rape? (visit 2) and he has attributed that to Libby (projection)? Perhaps he took them as a trophy as per his usual MO. Upon reflection at home he may have thought it best 'for him' that if she were ever found it was better she be wearing them.
So could he have put them back on her on visit 3, when she was dead or dying before he put her into the river?
There's a reason why he goes back 2.5 hours later - He said he was 'worried about her'
“I went out in the car and looked whether she had gone anywhere or was laid on the ground anywhere.”
WHY did he think she'd still be laid on the ground at that particular spot, after that long if he'd seen her walking away? Even if he hadn't seen her walking away, wouldn't you presume after that long, she'd be somewhere else - safely at home maybe.
IMO He knew she was still 'laid on the ground'.
JMO

I like this theory, given we know he steals and keeps underwear. Maybe he mentions her throwing her pants at him in the car en route to ORPF, to explain any traces due to his carrying them back and forth? (Mind you that's a minor point given he admits she is in the passenger seat anyway.)

The re-dressing theory suggests to me that Libby's wearing her jacket when she enters the water, and it slips from her body at some point as she drifts. The police would surely have found it if it were discarded or lost in the park that night. Third possibility - PR disposes of the jacket elsewhere but I don't see why he'd do that. It 'looks' better for him if he leaves it on Libby along with her underwear.

 

[ChiCubs2016]

It could also explain why her top and jacket were missing, paradoxical undressing. It must be quite difficult for a top with long sleeves to come off unless it was ripped off by snagging in the river.

paradoxical undressing

I would think if this was the case her top and jacket would have been found. LE knew what she was wearing when she went missing. There were pictures of similar items posted on news and SM so I think it would have been reported if they were found. MOO

 

[Zazie]

I would think if this was the case her top and jacket would have been found. LE knew what she was wearing when she went missing. There were pictures of similar items posted on news and SM so I think it would have been reported if they were found. MOO

I'd forgotten about Libby's top being missing too - I think I keep picturing her in a dress rather than skirt because of a photograph of her wearing the leather jacket with a black dress of a similar length to the skirt. It does seem a bit more improbable then that she enters the water fully dressed but two top layers could both slip off. (Where the heck are they then and what chances did PR have to dispose of them without being caught by CCTV in the days that followed?)

 

[CoverMeCagney]

If he can be given consecutive sentences, can they start after his current sentences for his sex crimes finish? @mrjitty can you help with this one?

Yes. It’s more common for concurrent sentences to be handed out these days, but hopefully his will be consecutive. And long.

Types of prison sentences

 

[Miss_French]

Would the jury be permitted to find PR guilty of manslaughter if there was not enough evidence he had put Libby in the river but enough evidence to show by taking her to ORPF he had put her in grave danger with resulting death? I remember someone posted that manslaughter had not been put on the table but are the jury still allowed to find PR guilty of manslaughter?

Yes. Happened in the case of PC Andrew Harper; the defendents were charged with murder and a jury found them guilty of manslaughter.

 

[tedtink]

It could also explain why her top and jacket were missing, paradoxical undressing. It must be quite difficult for a top with long sleeves to come off unless it was ripped off by snagging in the river.

paradoxical undressing

I like this theory, given we know he steals and keeps underwear. Maybe he mentions her throwing her pants at him in the car en route to ORPF, to explain any traces due to his carrying them back and forth? (Mind you that's a minor point given he admits she is in the passenger seat anyway.)

The re-dressing theory suggests to me that Libby's wearing her jacket when she enters the water, and it slips from her body at some point as she drifts. The police would surely have found it if it were discarded or lost in the park that night. Third possibility - PR disposes of the jacket elsewhere but I don't see why he'd do that. It 'looks' better for him if he leaves it on Libby along with her underwear.

Is it possible during the 'clean up' that he may have thrown the jacket into the river too and it's just caught on the river bed somewhere?
JMO

 

[JosieJo]

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.

This is where I am exactly

There are some things that are worrying..but of course its based on rational thinking and how rational he is ...well?

But that aside some things bother me apart from the tight timeline and the screams and inconclusive post mortem

I agree some of his actions are more akin to raping rather than murder

Going back out that night ... murder would be a massive step up ... he did not have time to think "why" he was putting her in the river ..I dont think he was thinking about DNA or if she would be found ...it would be a knee jerk thing ... to go back out and put yourself on cctv at the park knowing you had murdered there is hard to believe...with rape more likely as he may think she was not in a condition to report it or he could say it was consensual

Why did his final testimony not put them in the park which would have been beneficial?

Why tell friends knowing you had murdered...and I dont buy he thought she wouldn't be found ...absolutely no guarantee at all

Why mention knickers and try and give a story for them to be off?

If after having hours to think in the bath ...why leave the condom on the street? If he wanted to try and do anything with that condom why not place it near the park? It would help him try and show consensual sex