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

[ChiCubs2016]

I have thought this as well. The expert indicated she would not be able to defend herself. I will have to go back and look for exact wording, but I recall at the time thinking she would not be able to fight enough to fend off PR raping her. I do think Libby could have tried to run away. I do not think she would have gotten far as it probably would have been very similar to how she appeared walking on CCTV. Staggering and stumbling. I say she could have tried but I do not know if she did. MOO

Just one more thought. I have a very hard time thinking Libby was alive in the park wondering around until she eventually ended up in the river after PR left. The CCTV showed she was drunk, walking was staggering, clumsy, she fell down several times. Whether in or at the park, She had just been violently raped, evidenced by scratches on PR. That had to take a lot out of her physically. I think if Libby was left alive she would not have gotten very far and would have stumbled or laid down due to physical and mental exhaustion. IMHO she would have been found dead (sorry to use this word) lying in the park (or outside somewhere if we believe PR’s version). MOO

 

[JosieJo]

Why not ? If the jury is sure the person was killed

For example...in this case someone might think the prosecution case is more likely to have happened than what the defence put forward
But
If as part of the case the prosecution put forward they have not made you sure he killed her' then although you might think the prosecution version is more likely then it should be not guilty

Being sure has to be present

 

[Newthoughts]

Why not ? If the jury is sure the person was killed

Not all victims are found early enough to be sure how they died.

You can only ever be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. Weigh up the balance of all the evidence look the limited number of alternatives and try see which is the most likely.

I think this case is actually far more clear cut than I thought.

 

[porkypies]

Plus... if there was a second man in the park, at the exact times all the multiple screams were heard, I am pretty sure he’d have come forward because he’d have heard those screams as clear as a bell that night.

I think firstly that coincidences can and do happen, and secondly, that there are plenty of people who do not ever report things to the police or anyone else, no matter what they see and hear. I don't think one can assume that screams would be reported, and we know that even one hesitated on the basis that it was foxes screaming. I have l suggested a few innocent reasons to be in the park at night at any time on any date, but not the equally numerous variety of guilty reasons for being there. Why would anyone going into the park have avoided that particular date and time?

 

[JosieJo]

Not all victims are found early enough to be sure how they died.

You can only ever be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. Weigh up the balance of all the evidence look the limited number of alternatives and try see which is the most likely.

I think this case is actually far more clear cut than I thought.

I agree you have to weigh up lots of bits of evidence as there is no smoking gun ...but you have to weigh up if "you are sure" he killed her ...not weigh up which version of events is more likely...2 very different things

 

[ChiCubs2016]

Not all victims are found early enough to be sure how they died.

You can only ever be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. Weigh up the balance of all the evidence look the limited number of alternatives and try see which is the most likely.

I think this case is actually far more clear cut than I thought.

Some bodies are never found yet people are convicted of murder. In the case I believe Libby was killed.

 

[Newthoughts]

Just one more thought. I have a very hard time thinking Libby was alive in the park wondering around until she eventually ended up in the river after PR left. The CCTV showed she was drunk, walking was staggering, clumsy, she fell down several times. Whether in or at the park, She had just been violently raped, evidenced by scratches on PR. That had to take a lot out of her physically. I think if Libby was left alive she would not have gotten very far and would have stumbled or laid down due to physical and mental exhaustion. IMHO she would have been found dead (sorry to use this word) lying in the park (or outside somewhere if we believe PR’a version). MOO

I agree with you. For starters I don't think somebody who'd just been raped would walk into a dark park.

Secondly I don't think she'd have got far either. Hypothermia must be exhausting. Your body working full pelt to maintain your body temp. Your glucose and glycogen stores being depleted to do that. Mental and physical exhaustion of the nights events. Poor kid would have been terrified. So if she did get into that park I also think that's where she'd been found.

I think PR would have thought the same about her being unlikely to go into the park and therefore would have admitted to sex earlier.

PR is keen to keep everything outside the park. Why?

Surely safer to rape / have sex with somebody in the car or in the park

 

[Newthoughts]

I agree you have to weigh up lots of bits of evidence as there is no smoking gun ...but you have to weigh up if "you are sure" he killed her ...not weigh up which version of events is more likely...2 very different things

We absolutely know something happened. We're not working in the dark.

We have a very limited number of options.

We have a body of evidence to support those options.

I cannot see how any of the alternatives work. With all the evidence

And I do think the expert witnesses have given us inferences that should be heeded because they are the experts.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I think firstly that coincidences can and do happen, and secondly, that there are plenty of people who do not ever report things to the police or anyone else, no matter what they see and hear. I don't think one can assume that screams would be reported, and we know that even one hesitated on the basis that it was foxes screaming. I have l suggested a few innocent reasons to be in the park at night at any time on any date, but not the equally numerous variety of guilty reasons for being there. Why would anyone going into the park have avoided that particular date and time?

I’m not saying the man would report it at the time, but surely he’d report it as soon as he found out there had been an attack in the park that night?

Anyway, it’s a moot point for me as I doubt this other man even exists.

 

[tedtink]

I agree with you. For starters I don't think somebody who'd just been raped would walk into a dark park.

Secondly I don't think she'd have got far either. Hypothermia must be exhausting. Your body working full pelt to maintain your body temp. Your glucose and glycogen stores being depleted to do that. Mental and physical exhaustion of the nights events. Poor kid would have been terrified. So if she did get into that park I also think that's where she'd been found.

I think PR would have thought the same about her being unlikely to go into the park and therefore would have admitted to sex earlier.

PR is keen to keep everything outside the park. Why?

Surely safer to rape / have sex with somebody in the car or in the park

Not to mention even before hypothermia sets in extremities can become totally numb.
I've been in situation's where I've got so cold that my feet were completely numb and I couldn't even feel them.
It's hard to walk on them, let alone run.

 

[NorthernSoul]

For example...in this case someone might think the prosecution case is more likely to have happened than what the defence put forward
But
If as part of the case the prosecution put forward they have not made you sure he killed her' then although you might think the prosecution version is more likely then it should be not guilty

Being sure has to be present

I agree with you and I tried to find out more about this as it is crucial really as to what constitutes guilt. The article I read stated that, as you say, probability is enough in civil cases but not in criminal cases and that the more heinous the crime the greater the burden is to provide proof because the sentence will be severe. The article then went on to discuss what constitutes proof and as others have pointed out said that it is difficult to define. But they gave the example of a jury being shown CCTV of someone clearly seen boarding a plane to Manchester and then being shown on CCTV clearly alighting from the plane in Manchester. So we can say beyond reasonable doubt (excluding possibilities such as faked footage etc. so beyond reasonable doubt) that that person went to Manchester. This is the level of evidence required.

So in a murder trial we would be looking for: CCTV footage of the murder, eye witnesses to the murder, forensic evidence of murder on the victim, the murderer or in the environs or a murder weapon, statements of intention to murder, internet searches researching murder and so on.

We don't have any of this.

All of our evidence is circumstantial.

The rape charge is different; there is forensic evidence and witness evidence that Libby was not in a condition to consent.

 

[JosieJo]

Some bodies are never found yet people are convicted of murder. In the case I believe Libby was killed.

I agree you do not need a body ... you just need to be sure the defendant killed the person

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Some bodies are never found yet people are convicted of murder. In the case I believe Libby was killed.

Interesting point. Would PR be more or less likely to have faced charges and a trial IF Libby had never been found?

 

[mrazda71]

Why not ? If the jury is sure the person was killed by the defendant

Do you believe that 'No body' murders shouldn't be tried then? So if the murderer tried hard enough to hide it then they get away with it? No body, little evidence, no cause of death = home free?

 

[Dotta]

I wonder if he was sent to England to live with his sister because of his 'little problems ' . There was some talk somewhere about him training to be a chef in Poland.

It was me But maybe I added 2+2 and came with 5 When his mother in the interview said "he was a boy who baked cakes" I must have hopped into conclusion he finished a cooking school. My bad, sorry. I trawled Internet to verify it and found nothing.

 

[ChiCubs2016]

I agree you do not need a body ... you just need to be sure the defendant killed the person

And I feel sure based on what I have heard and eliminating the least likely scenarios. MOO

 

[Newthoughts]

I agree you do not need a body ... you just need to be sure the defendant killed the person

And how are you going to be sure?

 

[Sarahjo]

Just one more thought. I have a very hard time thinking Libby was alive in the park wondering around until she eventually ended up in the river after PR left. The CCTV showed she was drunk, walking was staggering, clumsy, she fell down several times. Whether in or at the park, She had just been violently raped, evidenced by scratches on PR. That had to take a lot out of her physically. I think if Libby was left alive she would not have gotten very far and would have stumbled or laid down due to physical and mental exhaustion. IMHO she would have been found dead (sorry to use this word) lying in the park (or outside somewhere if we believe PR’s version). MOO

would you say the distance between LS house and Haworth street is about the same as from the entrance of the park to the river? As on the CCTV she turns onto Beverly from Wellesley, crosses the road reasonably quickly in front of a bus and makes it to Haworth street without falling down so if it’s roughly the same distance then surely it’s possible she made it to the river edge?

Not sure if it is the same distance but looks similar on maps
I’ve searched for this particular piece of footage but I can’t find it.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Do you believe that 'No body' murders shouldn't be tried then? So if the murderer tried hard enough to hide it then they get away with it? No body, little evidence, no cause of death = home free?

Exactly.

Luckily we can see precedent with cases such as Joy Morgan.

 

[JosieJo]

I agree with you and I tried to find out more about this as it is crucial really as to what constitutes guilt. The article I read stated that, as you say, probability is enough in civil cases but not in criminal cases and that the more heinous the crime the greater the burden is to provide proof because the sentence will be severe. The article then went on to discuss what constitutes proof and as others have pointed out said that it is difficult to define. But they gave the example of a jury being shown CCTV of someone clearly seen boarding a plane to Manchester and then being shown on CCTV clearly alighting from the plane in Manchester. So we can say beyond reasonable doubt (excluding possibilities such as faked footage etc. so beyond reasonable doubt) that that person went to Manchester. This is the level of evidence required.

So in a murder trial we would be looking for: CCTV footage of the murder, eye witnesses to the murder, forensic evidence of murder on the victim, the murderer or in the environs or a murder weapon, statements of intention to murder, internet searches researching murder and so on.

We don't have any of this.

All of our evidence is circumstantial.

The rape charge is different; there is forensic evidence and witness evidence that Libby was not in a condition to consent.

I agree totally in the true sense ...imo anyway..we don't have enough evidence of proof ...not enough to be sure
Obviously we have not been in court so the jury may easily feel "sure"
I also think here he may well be found guilty using balance of probability...which imo is wrong ..but who will not want this man found guilty? Who would care about the reasons ? ..as whatever happened he was likely to have caused her death