Found Deceased UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #15 *ARREST*

[Newthoughts]

So am I correct in thinking that the only part of the article that is the actual police statement is the following...

“Enquiries are ongoing into the death of 21-year-old University of Hull student Libby Squire.

“We continue to investigate Libby’s death as a homicide, with further work and analysis being conducted.”

That to me doesnt connect PR currently to the investigation or rule him out, it simply omits any mention of him.

My opinion only, I think thats a little bit lame on behalf of the police. I completely understand that they are in a very difficult position (particularly if they DO believe its him but are struggling to join the dots), but a part of LE job is to provide reassurance that communities are safe. So they need to either press on and make something stick or warn the public to remain vigilant and broaden their thinking on suspects. As we stand at the moment a young women has been snatched, presumed murdered from a busy road and the most they can come up with is basically, We're working on it.

Its coming up to 3 months since Libby disappeared and PRs arrest and 5 weeks since she was discovered, not meaning to sound negative but this doesnt feel like progress at all.

And everytime I think about how frustrating this all is, brings me back to her family again, their pain and suffering is just unimaginable, an unending nightmare.

I'm not sure they can put stuff into the public domain without prejudicing any case can they? We don't know what progress has been made nor what actual avenues they are pursuing. Looking at the existing charges against PR for example, they might think his internet browsing history is of interest? If he's gone onto the dark web that will take a lot of time and expertise to sift through.

They might think it's worth going through earlier CCTV to pick him up engaging in other crimes.

They might need expertise to show where she was put in water and where she could have been killed. They may be getting DNA from everyone cigarette butt they picked up.

They might be liaising with other forces to look for patterns.

They linked PR to the case when the first inquest was held and they didn't unlink him this time which I feel must be significant. I'm pretty sure they would have done if they couldn't link. Him at all.

I also wonder if they're still looking for someone else as well.

I would have thought a suspicious death would take a long time to investigate but I'm new to this.

I also think, from what little we've heard about PR, that it might be quite a complicatef case they're bringing to court. Just my opinion but I think he probably has more of a part history than we've heard about.

Her poor family will know far more. They will be kept in the loop. It's their job to get justice for Libby and her family.

 

[Skigh]

As PR is still linked I am sure the police are convinced they have the right man.
I am sure they still are going through the evidence they do have.
I think if PR has admitted to her being in the car it will make it harder to prove as he can give a reason for her DNA being on his clothing.

I do not know if testing for any post mortem DNA or fluids take more time to test for.

 

[cluciano63]

PR is linked if they know she was in his car...but that may not help them prove she was not anyplace else afterward, for example. Especially if they cannot tell how she died. Right now, he is the probably the last known person to see or be with her but that does not make him the last for sure. Or prove that he harmed her.
Jmo

 

[Newthoughts]

PR is linked if they know she was in his car...but that may not help them prove she was not anyplace else afterward, for example. Especially if they cannot tell how she died. Right now, he is the probably the last known person to see or be with her but that does not make him the last for sure. Or prove that he harmed her.
Jmo

It makes for a powerful circumstantial case in my opinion. Dodgy sexual offender picks up vulnerable young women that has been seen by several witnesses, probably on CCTV. Her DNA is probably found on him. She's not seen again on any CCTV or by any witnesses until her body is found. Police are treating her death as homicide - not suspicious or currently unexplained.

Why do you think they can't explain how she died?

 

[Winterbells]

If the police are wanting to charge PR, I'm wondering if they're waiting for the results of his trial. If he's found guilty of some or all of the offences he's been charged with, it could be relevant in terms of the likelihood of getting a conviction for harming Libby. I don't think that the issue of whether a defendant's criminal record is allowed to be revealed to a jury is black and white. Having read a bit about it on the internet, it looks like there are some situations where the prosecution can reveal previous convictions to a jury.
I'm wondering if the police are biding their time because they'd be more likely to get a conviction if the jury are aware that a defendant has already been found guilty of sexual offences.
The potential problem with previous convictions? - Sinclairslaw

 

[Skigh]

I have wondered exactly the same thing.

 

[Winterbells]

I have wondered exactly the same thing.

I just edited my previous post to add a link, which if anyone can make any sense of, might shed some light on the whole business of disclosing previous convictions etc.

 

[Winterbells]

The police are allowed to tell the CPS about previous convictions, so I would imagine they'd be more likely to receive the go-ahead to charge someone for Libby's homicide if, along with whatever other evidence they have, the person they've arrested has already been found guilty of sexual offences

 

[NowhereMan]

Just read the link and I can't see that any circumstance (in this case) would mean that it would be allowed. The defence would surely not agree to it. It would only be allowed if PR (assuming he is found guilty on existing charges) declares that he is of good character/ would not be involved in sexual voyeurism etc.

If the case cannot be proven then nothing extraneous should be allowed. It could only prejudice a jury in what is a much much more serious matter.

 

[Winterbells]

Just read the link and I can't see that any circumstance (in this case) would mean that it would be allowed. The defence would surely not agree to it. It would only be allowed if PR (assuming he is found guilty on existing charges) declares that he is of good character/ would not be involved in sexual voyeurism etc.

If the case cannot be proven then nothing extraneous should be allowed. It could only prejudice a jury in what is a much much more serious matter.

I know what you mean, but surely if the defendant pleads not guilty, he'd be claiming to be of good character as part of his defence, no?
Plus, I can't understand why any defence counsel would agree to having previous convictions revealed to a jury. I just don't understand how it could benefit a defendant?
I guess if someone was being accused of animal cruelty, it could benefit them to have it revealed to the jury that they have previous convictions for protesting against fox hunts and the like...
Ok, yeah, I get it.

 

[JosieJo]

It makes for a powerful circumstantial case in my opinion. Dodgy sexual offender picks up vulnerable young women that has been seen by several witnesses, probably on CCTV. Her DNA is probably found on him. She's not seen again on any CCTV or by any witnesses until her body is found. Police are treating her death as homicide - not suspicious or currently unexplained.

Why do you think they can't explain how she died?

At the minute the cause of death has not been revealed...add to that no charges after a considerable amount of time, considering they have had their potential suspect for over 2 months
If they are clear how she died and it is obvious foul play why is it a homicide enquiry not a murder enquiry
Homicide is hardly ever used in the UK
Of course they may have a clear cause of death ...but there are certainly reasons here they may not ..based only on what we know a present

 

[Winterbells]

I'm still thinking about previous convictions being admissable in court.

I've found this, which I find interesting and informative:

Hearing and trial

Evidence of previous convictions
Where bad character is raised during a trial, the court is encouraged to look beyond the type of offence previously charged or the basic facts of the conviction. Unlike the old common law rules, previous offending no longer has to have a striking similarity. Therefore, significant features such as aspects of the mode of operation, characteristics of victims and types of weapons used may show a propensity which would not otherwise be obvious from the charge or basic facts.

The prosecution must be able to verify the facts and circumstances of the previous offending using, where necessary, the original case papers and victim or witness testimony. The prosecution must strike a balance between proving bad character and the practical considerations of obtaining evidence of previous offending.

When investigators are completing form MG16 – Evidence of Bad Character and preparing case files for the CPS, they must ensure that all relevant case papers, certificates of conviction and other relevant evidence are sourced as early as possible. This may also include tracing victims and witnesses. If the prosecution is to produce evidence of previous bad character at trial, it is required to comply with notice requirements under The Criminal Procedure Rules 2011 and to disclose relevant documents to the defence under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA).

 

[Loobyloo]

If the police are wanting to charge PR, I'm wondering if they're waiting for the results of his trial.

I've been wondering about this, too, but for a different reason. I hadn't actually thought about the issue of revealing previous offences. My query - which maybe only a legal expert can answer - is this:

What would happen about the existing charges/scheduled trial, if PR was charged with Libby's murder or manslaughter? Would the July trial be abandoned, in the light of more serious charges, or deferred until the outcome of the more serious case was known, or would it go ahead regardless?

Perhaps LE want to be sure of the July case going ahead (for the sake of the victims and for their own 'clear up' statistics) rather than having it dropped to deal with a more serious charge, which can wait till later.

Does anyone know what would happen in such a situation?

 

[Newthoughts]

At the minute the cause of death has not been revealed...add to that no charges after a considerable amount of time, considering they have had their potential suspect for over 2 months
If they are clear how she died and it is obvious foul play why is it a homicide enquiry not a murder enquiry
Homicide is hardly ever used in the UK
Of course they may have a clear cause of death ...but there are certainly reasons here they may not ..based only on what we know a present

Is it normal to reveal cause of death outside of a trial? I thought it had been said here that public inquests were put on hold in such cases to avoid prejudicing any future trial.

If they're not sure it's foul play Why are they using the term homicide? The more accurate term would be treating the death as suspicious. They started with potential homicide on finding her body and moved to homicide very quickly.

Their use of language has always appeared careful to me. They started with treating it as a 'missing person' comments. That continued after PRs arrest when they initially said 'continuing to treat it as a missing person case'. They then moved to 'fear she'd come to harm'.

In describing the arrest they initially said for abduction. They then changed it to kidnapping

Their language has always appeared precise so could it just be possible they are looking to murder rather than manslaughter. Or for further evidence of how she was killed (homicide) rather than how she died (suspicious could be homicide).

Two months doesn't seem a long time to me to spend investigating the death of a young woman with her whole life ahead of her. If it were my daughter I'd want every little potentially relevant fact dug up and analysed.

It took 9 years to charge Levi Belfield with Milly Dowlers murder.

 

[Newthoughts]

If the police are wanting to charge PR, I'm wondering if they're waiting for the results of his trial. If he's found guilty of some or all of the offences he's been charged with, it could be relevant in terms of the likelihood of getting a conviction for harming Libby. I don't think that the issue of whether a defendant's criminal record is allowed to be revealed to a jury is black and white. Having read a bit about it on the internet, it looks like there are some situations where the prosecution can reveal previous convictions to a jury.
I'm wondering if the police are biding their time because they'd be more likely to get a conviction if the jury are aware that a defendant has already been found guilty of sexual offences.
The potential problem with previous convictions? - Sinclairslaw

I always thought previous convictions couldn't be used until sentencing. But I wondered if there are things he hasn't been charged with yet that LE see as relevant to this case?

What I found interesting was the number and diverse nature of the charges being tried in one trial. Voyeurism, offending public decency, theft of sexual items and receiving stolen property. Doesn't the fact each one is being tried and heard together strengthen each case in the way hearing previous convictions might? If, for example, you've seen clear CCTV of PR waving his willy as evidence for one charge it's easier to see and accept it's him in a less clear image - would there really be two squat blokes commiting the same crime for example? Or is it more likely it's the same guy. @Joelle88 is more sure it's PR in Spidercam because she's seen him for example.

When he was first charged lots of people said they were surprised he hadn't been charged with more. So is it possible LE are going to use other incidents in any trial for Libby's homicide? If, for example, he'd tried to pick someone up a week or so before. If he'd flashed someone in the car seen in Spidercam. Even the appearance of other possible victims - if they were tall and dark haired.

Could that be LEs plan. A whole full picture leading up to Libby?

 

[JosieJo]

Is it normal to reveal cause of death outside of a trial? I thought it had been said here that public inquests were put on hold in such cases to avoid prejudicing any future trial.

If they're not sure it's foul play Why are they using the term homicide? The more accurate term would be treating the death as suspicious. They started with potential homicide on finding her body and moved to homicide very quickly.

Their use of language has always appeared careful to me. They started with treating it as a 'missing person' comments. That continued after PRs arrest when they initially said 'continuing to treat it as a missing person case'. They then moved to 'fear she'd come to harm'.

In describing the arrest they initially said for abduction. They then changed it to kidnapping

Their language has always appeared precise so could it just be possible they are looking to murder rather than manslaughter. Or for further evidence of how she was killed (homicide) rather than how she died (suspicious could be homicide).

Two months doesn't seem a long time to me to spend investigating the death of a young woman with her whole life ahead of her. If it were my daughter I'd want every little potentially relevant fact dug up and analysed.

It took 9 years to charge Levi Belfield with Milly Dowlers murder.

Yes its normal to reveal cause of death ..eg Joanna yeates .found 25th ..28th they announced she died by compression to the neck and launched a murder inquiry...her post mortem was also very difficult because of being frozen

When I said the investigation had been quite a long time It wasnt in reference to how long they should investigate..its a given both her and her family deserve as long as it takes ...my point was considering its likely they knew who picked her up months ago it's taking an unusual amount of time to charge if they have the evidence

I agree its likely currently "homicide" because they are looking at how she died ...because homicide could mean anything from falling into the river running away from him ...to full blow murder

What I cant understand is ...if the PM shows a clear indication of foul play ..eg strangulation, trauma etc ..why not a murder enquiry

 

[JosieJo]

I honestly cannot remember any investigation in the UK that has been classed as a homicide investigation

 

[JosieJo]

Another thought that has crossed my mind ..is it possible they have been purposely vague in hope a suspect might confess ...if they were to state cause of death was inconclusive what chance is there of that happening ?

 

[Miss_French]

I always thought previous convictions couldn't be used until sentencing. But I wondered if there are things he hasn't been charged with yet that LE see as relevant to this case?

What I found interesting was the number and diverse nature of the charges being tried in one trial. Voyeurism, offending public decency, theft of sexual items and receiving stolen property. Doesn't the fact each one is being tried and heard together strengthen each case in the way hearing previous convictions might? If, for example, you've seen clear CCTV of PR waving his willy as evidence for one charge it's easier to see and accept it's him in a less clear image - would there really be two squat blokes commiting the same crime for example? Or is it more likely it's the same guy. @Joelle88 is more sure it's PR in Spidercam because she's seen him for example.

When he was first charged lots of people said they were surprised he hadn't been charged with more. So is it possible LE are going to use other incidents in any trial for Libby's homicide? If, for example, he'd tried to pick someone up a week or so before. If he'd flashed someone in the car seen in Spidercam. Even the appearance of other possible victims - if they were tall and dark haired.

Could that be LEs plan. A whole full picture leading up to Libby?

Bad Character applies to previous convictions for a defendent, so wouldn't it look odd to a jury that at trial there are 'incidents' related to PR brought up that the police haven't charged him with? I'd be wondering if there wasn't enough evidence to charge, so was it actually PR?

 

[Newthoughts]

Bad Character applies to previous convictions for a defendent, so wouldn't it look odd to a jury that at trial there are 'incidents' related to PR brought up that the police haven't charged him with? I'd be wondering if there wasn't enough evidence to charge, so was it actually PR?

I wonder was it just PR. I think he's definitely involved. I'm not so sure he's the only one involved. I wonder if the 4 potential witnesses are all just witnesses.