Found Deceased UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #13 *ARREST*

[Lincoln34]

Crown Prosecution Code re prosecution here - The Code for Crown Prosecutors | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[lilmissd33]

I think the sat nav comment was his way of saying I had to sat nav that road because I've NEVER been there before ...... and didn't do anything whilst not being there. A unrelated charge pending.
As for beyond reasonable doubt it's impossible to be anymore collectively sure as no matter what we all have slight different perceptions of the same thing (spider cam anyone.... ps why was it not named web cam?) And if 100% certainty was humanly possible we would only need one person not a jury as the whole point is how majority of peers see what's plausible and or probable as when I say you did and you say I didn't can you prove the negative, so if you say i was with my best friend and he says its true however i say 100 people say they saw you whos story is more plausible .... probably mine but who knows really ... no one or why would we need to ask. Sorry I had a little rant and hope at least 1 or 2 people get the point I'm making, obviously it's just my perception of justice ... your doubts are reasonable to you so we need a majority to decide who's is more probable.

 

[Audiohoney]

I find the fact that a group of people can lock you in a cage for decades without even having the certainty you committed a crime absolutely chilling. It’s no wonder we’re hearing more and more often of wrongful convictions. Forensic “science” is loaded to the brim with pseudoscientific, untested claims. Much of it isn’t even science.

To me, it’s terrifying that a person, even you or I, could find themselves at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and be sentenced to life in prison solely because of shoddy forensics and a blood-thirsty jury. I don’t think beyond reasonable doubt is good enough. Not the least because the average person isn’t all that reasonable. I’d rather see ten guilty men walk free than an innocent one be locked up.

I can only hope the police have much more evidence against him. If not, and he gets locked up based on what I’ve read in Libby’s threads so far, then I’m scared to go outside.

I understand your concerns. But do bear in mind, the crimes PR is held in custody for at the moment are completely unrelated to Libby. And he chose not to apply for bail.

He’s held and been charged with unrelated crimes, which appear to indicate sexual deviancy. I’m inclined to believe police have a great deal more supporting evidence than we are aware of. Evidence bags were taken from the house which we are led to believe contain stolen items including vibrators, a stream of witnesses are set to testify against him, an e-fit shared in MSM is an astounding likeness and we are led to believe cctv footage will back these charges against him. So in this instance it isn’t pseudoscience, but pretty concrete evidence.

Is there strong evidence he’s responsible for Libby’s death? He’s admitted she was in his car after she was last seen on cctv, if he’s guilty of the above that makes him a sexual deviant and police will have further cctv of them together that we haven’t yet seen. It isn’t direct proof of murder, but it’s compelling nonetheless. They will also have spoken with his wife with whom he lived. If she’s unable or unwilling to offer an alibi I’m sure that will be taken into consideration as well.

Miscarriages of justice do happen when circumstantial evidence is relied upon. But I feel they have more than a few tentative connections in this case.

 

[lilmissd33]

Miscarriages of justice do happen when circumstantial evidence is relied upon. But I feel they have more than a few tentative connections in this case.

I believe this is a common misconception and I think forensics at times carry more weight than they should at times. Juries tend to believe DNA is proof of being present for example with 100% percent certainty however the circumstances of the DNA being present can vary from being planted to something as innocent as third party transfer. Let's say grey beard did help Libby up by her arm then he checked over a few minor scratches dna is on both and it sounds incriminating her blood on him his around her arm dragging her only circumstances prove its innocent transfer.
This is just a scenario using relevance and just MOO ... before I look like him implying any DNA anywhere ever.

 

[Audiohoney]

I believe this is a common misconception and I think forensics at times carry more weight than they should at times. Juries tend to believe DNA is proof of being present for example with 100% percent certainty however the circumstances of the DNA being present can vary from being planted to something as innocent as third party transfer. Let's say grey beard did help Libby up by her arm then he checked over a few minor scratches dna is on both and it sounds incriminating her blood on him his around her arm dragging her only circumstances prove its innocent transfer.

Yes, good point, and agreed on this, but that’s why prosecution relies on a combination of DNA, cctv, witness testimony and more ... to build a plausible picture.

 

[lilmissd33]

Yes, good point, and agreed on this, but that’s why prosecution relies on a combination of DNA, cctv, witness testimony and more ... to build a plausible picture.

100% agree which is why I only made issue of the last paragraph regarding miscarriage of justice as I read it to say it occurs due to circumstantial evidence, however I believe what makes a case breaks a case.

 

[Newthoughts]

I find the fact that a group of people can lock you in a cage for decades without even having the certainty you committed a crime absolutely chilling. It’s no wonder we’re hearing more and more often of wrongful convictions. Forensic “science” is loaded to the brim with pseudoscientific, untested claims. Much of it isn’t even science.

To me, it’s terrifying that a person, even you or I, could find themselves at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and be sentenced to life in prison solely because of shoddy forensics and a blood-thirsty jury. I don’t think beyond reasonable doubt is good enough. Not the least because the average person isn’t all that reasonable. I’d rather see ten guilty men walk free than an innocent one be locked up.

I can only hope the police have much more evidence against him. If not, and he gets locked up based on what I’ve read in Libby’s threads so far, then I’m scared to go outside.

He won't get locked based on what is written here though! That's a nonsensical statement. The police must already have had a lot of evidence to question him for the full 96 hours allowed. It is very difficult to get courts to agree to that without presenting new bits of evidence

This is NOT a court of law. We do NOT have the evidence the police have. Nor are we party to his defence. His trial will be held away from Hull.

I'm not sure why a jury would be blood thirsty either. They are told to keep emotions out and look at facts. They are specifically instructed to ignore anything said outside of the courtroom

It won't be one piece of forensic science that will convict or absolve him it'll be lots of different pieces of evidence. CCTV, phone pings, witnesses, DNA, fingerprints, soil samples, footprints, cause of death etc. His defence will have access to ALL that information as well.

The bar for beyond all reasonable doubt is very, very high! Lots of bits of evidence all having to point the same way.

To get 'certainty' as you are proposing then every citizen would need to be accompanied at all times by a police officer with recording equipment. Actually make that 2 police officers in case one lies and maybe an member of the public to check they don't collude.

Your claim that forensic science is loaded with pseudo science and untested claims is simply the most dangerous thing I've ever heard. It is run by qualified scientists. It's been tested and retested. But I'm willing to read any peer reviewed papers you are party to that have managed to discredit the whole DNA sampling, fingerprinting, CCTV, dashcam, pollen analysis, medicine etc along with every scientist involved. I have a science degree so only proper peer review will do for this.

Lastly there is simply no motive for anyone to 'fit' PR up for this crime. If it is him then the police have a duty to protect other young women and their families and prove it. If it isn't him there won't be proof. And in between there will actual guilty but presumption of innocence which will be your guilty man walking free.

I also hold to the better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent suffer quote. Thats why we have Independent courts, trial by jury, chances to appeal, right to a defence and a beyond all reasonable doubt!

This is just a discussion form to discuss ifs and buts.

 

[HopeForGoodNews]

Libby falls asleep/ passes out with alcohol in his car. He retrieves her ID from her jacket pocket, sees address, puts it into Sat Nav, does drive by of her house to make it look like on record he just gave Libby a lift home, continues driving from Wellesley with Libby still in car to Oak Road, Libby still unconscious at this point. Just thinking out loud really. The Sat Nav thing, if true, is strange because he is actively creating a firm link between himself and Libby, why?

This is an awful though but one I can't shake but as above, what if Libby became unresponsive in his car and he panicked thinking she was dead so disposed of the "body" to make it seem as an accident if/when she was found. Maybe no obvious marks on her body thus it potentially becoming a manslaughter case.

Whatever happened that night, this wasn't an accident IMHO. Someone was involved and I hope justice is done.

 

[Audiohoney]

100% agree which is why I only made issue of the last paragraph regarding miscarriage of justice as I read it to say it occurs due to circumstantial evidence, however I believe what makes a case breaks a case.

Sorry, yes, I’ve re-read my last paragraph and it does sound that way! What I meant to say was WEAK circumstantial evidence CAN lead to false convictions in SOME cases. I’m in agreement with you.

 

[Newthoughts]

Can we not use this alleged sister comment. It is not evidence and she may well have said that off her own back and it never came from him at all. It is currently not verified by anyone... other than her.

It won't be used in a court of law. So it's not being used as evidence because this isn't a court of law.

It is being discussed because it's a very bizarre thing to say.

 

[HopeForGoodNews]

Ah, ok. I’m actually only learning to drive at the moment and was under impression you could be fined £1000 for not updating address. Driving licence WARNING - Students MUST do this or risk landing £1,000 fine | Express.co.uk

So, that leaves either Libby provided her address or P deduced it by some other means.

All ifs and buts but if PR as stalking Libby or other students in the area he potentially would know her address. LS isn't able to say no I didn't tell him it, therefore it is just his word that she did and it cant easily be disproved unless they find it entered later.

 

[lilmissd33]

It won't be used in a court of law. So it's not being used as evidence because this isn't a court of law.

It is being discussed because it's a very bizarre thing to say.

And it's normally regarded as every lie having a grain of truth so curiosity means we rake with a fine tooth comb and a grain of truth is worth a look.

 

[Plod]

If anything, ID is going to show her home address, not that of her student accommodation.

If I recall my student I’d didn’t have that any address to prevent undesirables knowing where students lived...

 

[Plod]

I honestly don’t see any definitive proof that it was him. There may be a 90% certainty, but I don’t think people should be sent to jail when we don’t know for certain that they did it.

You don’t - but the police might

 

[lilmissd33]

You don’t - but the police might

And more so the jury get to decide when they have it all in one place with timelines relevance etc then more they get to make their own minds up, unless they are the 10 previous guilty men who where let go because an innocent man was suspected of something and he couldn't 100% prove he didn't do it so 11 go free, and now 12 because the jury sees right and wrong different to us. ..... I believe I'd rather spend my innocent life in prison before allowing 10 men like this man is suspected of being go free my life behind bars saves 100s of others.

 

[MischievousCupcake]

He won't get locked based on what is written here though! That's a nonsensical statement. The police must already have had a lot of evidence to question him for the full 96 hours allowed. It is very difficult to get courts to agree to that without presenting new bits of evidence

This is NOT a court of law. We do NOT have the evidence the police have. Nor are we party to his defence. His trial will be held away from Hull.

I'm not sure why a jury would be blood thirsty either. They are told to keep emotions out and look at facts. They are specifically instructed to ignore anything said outside of the courtroom

It won't be one piece of forensic science that will convict or absolve him it'll be lots of different pieces of evidence. CCTV, phone pings, witnesses, DNA, fingerprints, soil samples, footprints, cause of death etc. His defence will have access to ALL that information as well.

The bar for beyond all reasonable doubt is very, very high! Lots of bits of evidence all having to point the same way.

To get 'certainty' as you are proposing then every citizen would need to be accompanied at all times by a police officer with recording equipment. Actually make that 2 police officers in case one lies and maybe an member of the public to check they don't collude.

Your claim that forensic science is loaded with pseudo science and untested claims is simply the most dangerous thing I've ever heard. It is run by qualified scientists. It's been tested and retested. But I'm willing to read any peer reviewed papers you are party to that have managed to discredit the whole DNA sampling, fingerprinting, CCTV, dashcam, pollen analysis, medicine etc along with every scientist involved. I have a science degree so only proper peer review will do for this.

Lastly there is simply no motive for anyone to 'fit' PR up for this crime. If it is him then the police have a duty to protect other young women and their families and prove it. If it isn't him there won't be proof. And in between there will actual guilty but presumption of innocence which will be your guilty man walking free.

I also hold to the better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent suffer quote. Thats why we have Independent courts, trial by jury, chances to appeal, right to a defence and a beyond all reasonable doubt!

This is just a discussion form to discuss ifs and buts.

Forensic science is known to be loaded with pseudoscientific . It’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s a known issue. Some examples of forensic science, like those you mentioned, are reliable, but many aren’t. Vox did a series recently on a man who spent much of his life in prison because of faulty forensics. There’s also the Innocence Project, whose entire purpose of existence is fighting against wrongful convictions, which are rife, at least in America.

Misapplication of Forensic Science

Faulty Forensic Science under Fire

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...fforts-to-change-that/?utm_term=.c2f127869344

FBI Testimony on Microscopic Hair Analysis Contained Errors in at Least 90 Percent of Cases in Ongoing Review (“These findings confirm that FBI microscopic hair analysts committed widespread, systematic error, grossly exaggerating the significance of their data under oath with the consequence of unfairly bolstering the prosecutions’ case,”)

Bad forensic science is putting innocent people in prison

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ustice-system-ignores-science-pursuit-n961256

 

[Skigh]

I think if Libby just became unresponsive in his car and all he had done was offer her a lift he had no reason to hide her.
The fact that screams were heard later lead me to believe she was alive in the area of the park.

 

[lilmissd33]

Forensic science is known to be loaded with pseudoscientific ********. It’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s a known issue.

Think it's more human error and over emphasis on importance not science being wrong, forensics is knowingly held as higher proof than speculation and this works both ways guilty men walk free for lack of forensics because jurors find lack of forensics is only possible in this day if they didn't do it and it's as much a hindering fact as a smoke screen for innocence, circumstantial evidence is as important if not more so but tv etc have blurred the lines and humans do make mistakes some mistakes have greater consequences like over selling importance regarding hair fibres etc and me assuming my neighbour stole my mail when it was the dog eating it. That's why almost everyone had said it has to be a strong all round case and the jury are not idiots they have minds of their own don't assume they can't see the obvious only you can 12 against one means your probably wrong. The justice system is a whole and as a whole it works, JMO

 

[Newthoughts]

Forensic science is known to be loaded with pseudoscientific ********. It’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s a known issue. Some examples of forensic science, like those you mentioned, are reliable, but many aren’t. Vox did a series recently on a man who spent much of his life in prison because of faulty forensics. There’s also the Innocence Project, whose entire purpose of existence is fighting against wrongful convictions, which are rife, at least in America.

Misapplication of Forensic Science

Faulty Forensic Science under Fire

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...fforts-to-change-that/?utm_term=.c2f127869344

FBI Testimony on Microscopic Hair Analysis Contained Errors in at Least 90 Percent of Cases in Ongoing Review (“These findings confirm that FBI microscopic hair analysts committed widespread, systematic error, grossly exaggerating the significance of their data under oath with the consequence of unfairly bolstering the prosecutions’ case,”)

Bad forensic science is putting innocent people in prison

How bad science is being used to send people to prison

Without meaning to be rude all of those are citing American cases and none of them a large scale discrediting all of forensic science as scientifc . Can you be more precise about what your specific concerns are.

For example your innocence project data from the piece on FBI testimony seems to be looking at hair analysis cases prior to 2009 that haven't used mitochondrial DNA. Even that report states analysis had changed in light of this. It is now 2019.

The Nature review again concentrates on old American cases and often cites lack of certified examiners rather than issues with the actual science.

And in the very first case mentioned there - the 1995 bite mark - it was subsequent forensic evidence that exonerated him. That is it was DNA evidence that overturned his original conviction!!!! In short it was forensic evidence that got him off!

The others don't appear to be reviewed journals or research.

Hull is in the UK and it multiple sources of be evidence will be required. PRs defence will be given every single piece of evidence to check and recheck.

 

[Smccat]

I agree. If he said this, there is def a reason for it

He clearly knows her Avenue - for some reason- why did he choose to masturbate on that particular one? Who was he hoping would see him/ to frighten / shock?
Why did he enter her address in a sat nav? It was only around the corner and Libby would have known the way even if she was drunk /distressed. Notwithstanding he already knew full well where it was - why didn’t he just reassure her - as a taxi driver- that he knew it? I’d panic if a taxi driver put my address in a sat nav? When in reality you’d just head roughly to where you knew it was and then ask the person for a pointer ?
How out of it /unconscious /drunk would you have to be not to be able to utter a few words ? Where I am going is had she possibly have been spiked earlier in the evening and it all hit at once ? I’ve been spiked and it was awful - I was so bad collapsed in a toilet I thought I was going to die right there - I could not speak.
Anyway sorry for such long rambling ...
So many questions... poor Libby RIP angel x