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

[JosieJo]

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.

Exactly this ... likely we will never know the sequence of events whatever the verdict...either way he is going to prison for a very long time

 

[Sooty]

@JosieJo i agree with you. I would also say that it would be very curious to have committed (your first)murder, or left someone to die knowingly, not to have some kind of information/google search particularly if you were planning to pop back for a clean up. I mean, he was on his phone and on the internet, but no curiosity about death, or disposal, or police actions or anything at all. And not even on your return after your clean up. I would say that is most unusual. Particularly so if he honestly believed he would never be caught or her body never found.

MOO

 

[Newthoughts]

There seems to some debate that murder is a huge step from his previous crimes. Which do often feature as precursors to rapes and murder but clearly aren't sufficient for many people.

I quite curious as to which steps to rape and murder that PR has missed out? What is this pathway and what comes next in the sequence?

This is a genuine question.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

There seems to some debate that murder is a huge step from his previous crimes. Which do often feature as precursors to rapes and murder but clearly aren't sufficient for many people.

I quite curious as to which steps to rape and murder that PR has missed out? What is this pathway and what comes next in the sequence?

This is a genuine question.

We’ve not heard any testimony that he was ever violent to his wife, previous partners, or in fact anyone. He had no previous convictions for anything. Stories about his past may come out after trial.

Basically he is a pervy pervert who pervs, and, so far, has not got caught doing anything directly physical to anyone.

However, behind all that lies a psychologically dangerous, risk taking, sex obsessed man who has admitted to stalking women for his own warped pleasure. I would suspect many sex killers started off with more “minor” crimes such as voyeurism and sexual deviancy.

 

[Scorpiette]

There seems to some debate that murder is a huge step from his previous crimes. Which do often feature as precursors to rapes and murder but clearly aren't sufficient for many people.

I quite curious as to which steps to rape and murder that PR has missed out? What is this pathway and what comes next in the sequence?

This is a genuine question.

His leaving a condom next to a child's toy (is he saying 'if you use a condom you won't get stuck with kids?), his need to scare women, he seems to have no fear in getting caught whilst 'in the act', it all seems about anger towards women, and power over them. It seems like he thinks he's invincible (narcissism?), I think all this overrides rational thinking until his sexual urges subside, then his logic kicks back in (hence third visit to park, lies to police etc). Makes me shudder.

 

[Winterbells]

For me, it's not that I don't believe that there is a pathway to rape and murder, but he seems so averse to actual physical contact with women. In fact, he seems to revel in being just close enough to be terrifying but still coldly detached (masturbating from a few feet away, watching through a window, defiling the front door, stealing, filming from behind a curtain etc). These are the activities he says make him 'happy'. This is why I believe his aim was to masturbate at Libby, and possibly tried to do so in his locked car, but she needed to be allowed to get out (to be sick? to escape?) and then she started screaming and getting away from him, so he had to catch her and do his thing, no matter what... and he killed her to achieve that. The rape could have (quickly) happened after she'd stopped breathing. That, for me, would be more in keeping with his previous activity. Not a 'straightforward' rape and murder, but something way more detached and twisted. 'I didn't even know if it was legal' came out of his mouth.

 

[Steve2021]

I think those who believe Libby accidentally fell in the river or at least that it is reasonably possible she did, a view I disagree with but one they are quite entitled to hold, need to ask how did she get there. If you feel it is reasonably possible she made her own way from the road then were you on the jury you would find him not guilty of murder. But if you don't consider that reasonably possible, meaning you believe he left her alone, isolated and in peril near to the river, were you on the jury would you feel the same?

 

[JosieJo]

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.

Exactly this ... likely we will never know the sequence of events whatever the verdict...either way he is going to prison for a very long time

@JosieJo i agree with you. I would also say that it would be very curious to have committed (your first)murder, or left someone to die knowingly, not to have some kind of information/google search particularly if you were planning to pop back for a clean up. I mean, he was on his phone and on the internet, but no curiosity about death, or disposal, or police actions or anything at all. And not even on your return after your clean up. I would say that is most unusual. Particularly so if he honestly believed he would never be caught or her body never found.

MOO

I agree I totally forgot its very unusual for there to be no Internet searches on death or water etc ...most cases even with very bright people show this

 

[JosieJo]

I think those who believe Libby accidentally fell in the river or at least that it is reasonably possible she did, a view I disagree with but one they are quite entitled to hold, need to ask how did she get there. If you feel it is reasonably possible she made her own way from the road then were you on the jury you would find him not guilty of murder. But if you don't consider that reasonably possible, meaning you believe he left her alone, isolated and in peril near to the river, were you on the jury would you feel the same?

Unfortunately because she was vulnerable and not behaving rational at the time ...this picture is very clear ....its impossible to dismiss easily as it would be with a person not in that position
Also her ending up near the river has no time limit as the prosecco does ..a tight one.
She could have wandered around the park for hours before having to reach the water in theory

 

[JosieJo]

There seems to some debate that murder is a huge step from his previous crimes. Which do often feature as precursors to rapes and murder but clearly aren't sufficient for many people.

I quite curious as to which steps to rape and murder that PR has missed out? What is this pathway and what comes next in the sequence?

This is a genuine question.

I'm not at all saying that sexual offences do not escalate .. rape being the most expected first escalation especially as he had no Internet searches of murder or choking during sex etc ...and no history of violence to women we know of
And of course death could have been a consequence of the rape ....but how many rapes even more violent ones end in death ?

My point is it would be a huge step up for him at this point..once he had calmed down slightly surely even he knew the serious consequences of murder

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I’d still like to know where Relowicz said her snowy footprints led. Anyone know if he was asked to elaborate on that in court?

 

[Steve2021]

Also picking up on one of MrJitty's recent posts, for the defence to put it to the jury, you've heard my client's evidence, firstly the sex was initiated by Libby, secondly there is insufficient evidence to conclude he didn't reasonably believe she had the legal capacity to consent, thirdly the sex took place by the side of the road....but on the other hand if you conclude that's a complete pack of lies try this one, he raped her in the park but left her safe and well, she must have just fallen in the river, that's her bad luck, hardly his fault, he's not her dad, he's not responsible for her, you might feel him a tad ungallant, or even morally reprehensible, but that doesn't make him a murderer. How well is that going to go down? Moreso as his evidence is the polar opposite to this I do wonder whether as a matter of law they are permitted to advance this totally unsupported speculation, and whether the jury are permitted to consider it?

 

[Skigh]

Respectfully snipped by me.


....left her safe and well, she must have just fallen in the river, that's her bad luck, hardly his fault, he's not her dad, he's not responsible for her,

I wonder if PR said something very similar to his barrister when discussing his case.

 

[lo so]

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

But would she have suffered from cold water shock? The river would have been warmer than the air & snow that she'd been exposed to for hours.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Respectfully snipped by me.


....left her safe and well, she must have just fallen in the river, that's her bad luck, hardly his fault, he's not her dad, he's not responsible for her,

I wonder if PR said something very similar to his barrister when discussing his case.

If he did, I'm not surprised they didnt present it in court!

 

[elysian2]

Question re murder vs manslaughter in this particular case:

[apologies for asking here rather than trying to research myself; I'm not being lazy, I just have a very poor internet connection at the moment with most sites timing out, so it's quicker to ask you knowledgeable lot in one post!]

What scenario might the jury have in mind if they were to find for manslaughter not murder?

My understanding thus far is as follows, but I feel like I'm missing something:

1. Libby dies during the course of the rape or as a direct result of the rape = obviously murder

2. Libby dies having fallen into the river while actively trying to escape PR = murder due to the chain of events (I used to think this would have been manslaughter, but thanks to the links/input on this thread I now understand differently)

3. Libby is left alive by PR, distressed or unconscious, very close to the river but not heading towards it (eg sobbing on the ground, I know it's a horrible image, sorry) - so she is not actively trying to escape - but she then stumbles around in the dark after he has gone. Is that where the manslaughter would come in? That he caused her death due to his reckless and criminal actions, but not directly enough to be murder?

4. Libby is left alive by PR *outside the park* and then for whatever reason she stumbles into the river some distance away - presumably this would be not guilty, as it's stretching the chain of events too far, no?

If I'm wrong that something like #3 would be manslaughter, can someone explain better?
If that's roughly right, then I'm stuck on how the jury could consider manslaughter, because they (and we) cannot possibly know that #3 happened as opposed to #2?

[For absence of doubt: I like probably everyone here hold PR *morally* responsible for Libby's death, but based on the little we've seen from court, I'm not necessarily convinced that murder has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hence why I'm interested in what the jury would need to believe in order to find for manslaughter. ]

 

[ChiCubs2016]

I know these are extreme cases but Ted Bundy and Dennis Radar started out with Voyeurism. PR has been doing this for at least 18 months. We do not know of anything prior but it could have started much sooner. I do not think it is unreasonable to think rape and murder were PR’s next steps. I am grateful for the invention of CCTV because it may help prevent serial rapist and killers from going on for years and years leaving a trail of victims. MOO

 

[JosieJo]

I suppose the only questions the jury should be asking imo is
Have prosecution proven so that they are sure he killed her by his own hands or putting her in or very near the river

Has it been proven that his version is not possible...any other scenarios are not allowed to be considered

 

[Steve2021]

its very unusual for there to be no Internet searches on death or water etc ...most cases even with very bright people show this

The absence of searches would similarly infer he was in no doubt that it was rape

 

[JosieJo]

I know these are extreme cases but Ted Bundy and Dennis Radar started out with Voyeurism. PR has been doing this for at least 18 months. We do not know of anything prior but it could have started much sooner. I do not think it is unreasonable to think rape and murder were PR’s next steps. I am grateful for the invention of CCTV because it may help prevent serial rapist and killers from going on for years and years leaving a trail of victims. MOO

I totally agree ...especially as death as a consequence to rape ...but I'm also not convinced once he had come down from the immediate high he would not realise the seriousness of being caught for murder than rape that in his eyes he could say was consensual as many do each year ...and thats why I wonder about him telling friends..going back to the park in his car so soon etc