Found Deceased UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #17 *ARREST*

[Skigh]

Thanks ...so it may be the case that because his convictions never included physical violence or rape they may be more of a prejudice than a similarity??

Though I suppose there could be other witnesses not relevant to his past convictions to show some of these traits

I do think it very difficult though even in Sheffield the jury will not know about his past crimes.. it would just take one to know and discuss or just one to ignore the no Google rule

I do wonder how many jurors ignore the no Google rule.

 

[Newthoughts]

The rule against propensity evidence means generally evidence of prior misconduct cannot be presented.

The risk is that the jury thinks "he is the type of person who would do this crime". So we don't allow it as a rule.

However, so called Similar Fact Evidence is allowed, where the probative value outweighs the potential prejudice. The area is quite complicated and calls for careful analysis from the Judge.

IIRC it is not enough for the Crown to claim "he did this sex offending therefore he likely also did this sex murder"

You need to show a similarity or signature in the detail of the offending

So something i was wondering about is the priors show a pattern of lurking around the neighbourhood at night for opportunistic offending. So maybe the Crown can argue that the priors illustrate an intent that night - he was lurking looking for an opportunity. The problem with that is the priors are completely different in terms of the type of offending.

So without more, I suspect they can't be raised.

Long after his arrest the police said they were looking at hours of CCTV footage as part of the investigation. Would checking various cameras to track his path through Hull in the period 12.00 to 3.00 give rise to 'hours' necessarily?

When he was going to trial for the unrelated charges the police requested facilities to show CCTV. We now knew there was a lot of DNA, fingerprint and physical evidence. Would they really have needed CCTV footage as well?

So I wonder whether CCTV will play a part in showing intent without the need to mention former connections. IMO his location that night was ideal for stalking students and I wonder if there were some lucky escapees in previous footage of him on previous nights

 

[Cherwell]

Long after his arrest the police said they were looking at hours of CCTV footage as part of the investigation. Would checking various cameras to track his path through Hull in the period 12.00 to 3.00 give rise to 'hours' necessarily?

Yes, I would say so. Multiple cameras, so number of cameras multiplied by 3 hours. That could add up to many hours.

 

[Mommysleuth11]

If his previous sentence hearing is any kind of indicator, then i think he talked. He tried to give acounts of urinating on a door after having had sex with his wife as at least 1 example, Im pretty sure that was in his police interviews. If he was "happy" to talk about that i feel he would have tried to "explain" any evidence related to Libby.

I have also been thinking a lot about the screams since his charges. They were reported at 12.15 and 12.30? Is it possible they were somewhere between those times as they are pretty close together, could the direction of the sound have been distorted and sounded closer? I dont know but i do think they may be relevant and possible (hopeful) that more neighbours spoke to the police than the media.

@Newthoughts im pretty sure the police were asking for dashcam footage from 1100-0300 from early in the investigation, before PR was arrested iirc.

 

[mrjitty]

If his previous sentence hearing is any kind of indicator, then i think he talked. He tried to give acounts of urinating on a door after having had sex with his wife as at least 1 example, Im pretty sure that was in his police interviews. If he was "happy" to talk about that i feel he would have tried to "explain" any evidence related to Libby.

I have also been thinking a lot about the screams since his charges. They were reported at 12.15 and 12.30? Is it possible they were somewhere between those times as they are pretty close together, could the direction of the sound have been distorted and sounded closer? I dont know but i do think they may be relevant and possible (hopeful) that more neighbours spoke to the police than the media.

@Newthoughts im pretty sure the police were asking for dashcam footage from 1100-0300 from early in the investigation, before PR was arrested iirc.

I would also bet he talked. It is fairly common in the UK

For instance if he wants to rely on alibi as "taxi driver" then he needs to give that version to police in interview. To produce it at trial without prior disclosure would attract an adverse direction from the Judge to the Jury as it would be something he should reasonably disclose.

He will have been told about all this by his solicitor.

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks ...so it may be the case that because his convictions never included physical violence or rape they may be more of a prejudice than a similarity??

yes IMO

But if he claims to be a taxi driver, it might be possible to adduce the evidence for the limited purpose of showing what he really was doing hanging about at night.

So it would not be proof he is a rapist

But could be used as proof of why he was lurking in the street late at night.

 

[motherofdaughters]

I’m unsure on this too?
Is it a blanket rule that states prior convictions are not permitted in court due to their potential to prejudice a case?
In a case like this, surely it’s extremely relevant as it shares with the jury the character traits the defendant had been displaying in the lead up to Libby’s disappearance.
If I was a juror and the evidence was not clear cut and I found him innocent as a result - because I couldn’t be 100% certain - then I subsequently found out about his previous offences, I’d feel pretty mortified. Hearing about those prior charges would lead me to think I’d most probably made the wrong decision.

As Jitty said, largely not.
This is precisely why.

 

[Newthoughts]

Why are so many people assuming the evidence won't be conclusive? We simply don't know what the police have got. It could be it is just long and complex - for example forensic evidence of river Flora from the park to the Humber estuary. That would be time consuming in itself. We simply don't know what they have. Don't forget they've gone for a rape charge as well. CPS need evidence.

I also think he'll have said something to police. IMO the story his sister gave to the press was miles from their usual crap. Usually you get 'he'd never do such a thing' or 'we can't believe it'. He'd already fed his relatives a story that put him in the frame that night, I'd guess that would be his initial story.

He'd be daft not to give some kind of explanation to questions that are based on some kind of evidence otherwise there would be issues with him defending himself later. Doesn't the initial caution say something along the lines of not having to say anything but if you later try to use something you haven't said it may harm your defence?

 

[JosieJo]

For me common sense tells me that the charge has passed the CPS threshold so its likely the evidence will be conclusive...of course we do not know what evidence the police have

What niggles me though is the length of time it took to charge. Or even the length of time after finding her body which is probably more relevant

I do not feel there is a "smoking gun" here

I think he gave a version of events and they found it difficult to disprove

I also find it odd that they have never announced the cause of death ...I feel it will be clearer for me when I have that information

Most (not all) rely on the post mortem for evidence...its possible this was difficult in this case

Internet search history etc also very often plays a big part ...but again I'm not yet convinced there is a smoking gun here either as this data is extracted quickly and anything very damning would likely have led to an earlier charge ...for example if he had been searching "how quickly does a body travel to the sea" in the first few days before he was arrested that would have made a charge easier and earlier

I agree some of the specialist forensics relating to the river / sea would have been lengthy....but I'm struggling to see how this is going to help the prosecution...only based on my opinion ... this being because I feel no matter what happened to her she went into the water at the park

I'm sure once we hear all the evidence it will become a lot clearer for me

 

[Newthoughts]

For me common sense tells me that the charge has passed the CPS threshold so its likely the evidence will be conclusive...of course we do not know what evidence the police have

What niggles me though is the length of time it took to charge. Or even the length of time after finding her body which is probably more relevant

I do not feel there is a "smoking gun" here

I think he gave a version of events and they found it difficult to disprove

I also find it odd that they have never announced the cause of death ...I feel it will be clearer for me when I have that information

Most (not all) rely on the post mortem for evidence...its possible this was difficult in this case

Internet search history etc also very often plays a big part ...but again I'm not yet convinced there is a smoking gun here either as this data is extracted quickly and anything very damning would likely have led to an earlier charge ...for example if he had been searching "how quickly does a body travel to the sea" in the first few days before he was arrested that would have made a charge easier and earlier

I agree some of the specialist forensics relating to the river / sea would have been lengthy....but I'm struggling to see how this is going to help the prosecution...only based on my opinion ... this being because I feel no matter what happened to her she went into the water at the park

I'm sure once we hear all the evidence it will become a lot clearer for me

Doesn't every criminal that pleads not guilty give a 'version' of events? It's not the polices job to disprove that, it's their job to ascertain what actually happened and prove it beyond reasonable doubt.


Plus you'd only ever have to give a version of events if you were somehow shown to be there. If somebody asked me had I robbed a bank and I hadn't I wouldn't and couldn't give a version of events anyway. His sisters story - with all the caveats about our rubbish press and translations - suggest he was already giving a version of events early on that placed him in the frame.

If someone was placed in the river at a certain point and found at another surely you'd need to track their progress? To ascertain the scene of the crime? Especially if you have additional evidence placing PR at that point. Surely the jury need a fuller picture of events to reach a decision. And to charge him.

They have also gone for a rape charge as well. That was a shock but not a surprise. A shock because that's difficult to prove at the best of times. They've also gone for murder which IMO only precludes anything that could be considered accidental.

We simply don't know what they have. All we have left to hope for is a guilty plea to save her loved ones more pain.

 

[JosieJo]

Yes every criminal will give a version on events ..but they are the ones who start the process with the presumption of innocence...so it's down to the prosecution to show this to be untrue or that it could not happen that way

Just my opinion but I think he put himself with her from the beginning...and madly that could just as easy run in his favour if they had difficulty trying to find out what actually happened to her in the park

I agree totally if they have charged the likelihood is they have their evidence...I just dont think they found it easy and do not have a smoking gun

 

[mrjitty]

As Jitty said, largely not.
This is precisely why.

Exactly - that is why this kind of evidence isn't allowed.

 

[mrjitty]

Yes every criminal will give a version on events ..but they are the ones who start the process with the presumption of innocence...so it's down to the prosecution to show this to be untrue or that it could not happen that way

Just my opinion but I think he put himself with her from the beginning...and madly that could just as easy run in his favour if they had difficulty trying to find out what actually happened to her in the park

I agree totally if they have charged the likelihood is they have their evidence...I just dont think they found it easy and do not have a smoking gun

Generally where the accused advances a positive version, there needs to be at least some evidential basis for it - the prosecution does not have to disprove wild speculation.

So while the prosecution holds the evidential burden (presumption of innocence) in practical terms there will be an evidential burden upon the accused to stand up his version of events.

This is where things get potentially interesting.

Say for example he did in fact tell police he was working as a taxi driver, he likely needs some additional evidence for it, beyond his bare assertion, if it is to be taken seriously. The Crown on the other hand, will attack that explanation and try to make it appear unreliable.

In general the jury will be directed to consider what facts it accepts.

 

[Cherwell]

They have also gone for a rape charge as well. That was a shock but not a surprise. A shock because that's difficult to prove at the best of times.

Not difficult where there is evidence, as there is here, that the victim was too drunk to be capable of informed consent. So all they need to prove is that he had sexual intercourse with her. The charge suggests that there is evidence that he did.

 

[JosieJo]

Generally where the accused advances a positive version, there needs to be at least some evidential basis for it - the prosecution does not have to disprove wild speculation.

So while the prosecution holds the evidential burden (presumption of innocence) in practical terms there will be an evidential burden upon the accused to stand up his version of events.

This is where things get potentially interesting.

Say for example he did in fact tell police he was working as a taxi driver, he likely needs some additional evidence for it, beyond his bare assertion, if it is to be taken seriously. The Crown on the other hand, will attack that explanation and try to make it appear unreliable.

In general the jury will be directed to consider what facts it accepts.

Yes definitely.. his version needs to be "believable" I agree ..with something back it up .not some wild story

My fear would be if he gave a "reasonable" version of bumping into her that would stand up...for example he told his wife he was trying to earn some money and had done it before
Another worry is if he was on cctv leaving the general area of the park in his car in a timeframe that would fit with his version and not seen to return at anytime

 

[JosieJo]

Where I do think his version may come tumbling down is why were they in the park ...makes no sense ..not when they were in a car

 

[Niner]

So.... any news on the hearing for March? A date? TIA!

I too hope he just pleads guilty....

 

[Newthoughts]

Yes definitely.. his version needs to be "believable" I agree ..with something back it up .not some wild story

My fear would be if he gave a "reasonable" version of bumping into her that would stand up...for example he told his wife he was trying to earn some money and had done it before
Another worry is if he was on cctv leaving the general area of the park in his car in a timeframe that would fit with his version and not seen to return at anytime

Starting with the assumption that spidercam shows him and Libby (which is a very good assumption for reasons that have been detailed here on numerous occasions) and that he gave his sister the strange tale that connects him to her physically within the relevant time frame (his claims of pushing her away) then I'd struggle to think of a reasonable version.

If he'd claimed to be working as a taxi driver or even just to be helping a distressed girl as his sister suggests - he would have dropped her somewhere safe or even unsafe and left. The dropping off part is conspicuously absent from his sisters account.

He'd have shown up on CCTV somewhere at a time that would be helpful to him and that would match his version. She probably would have been seen as well if dropped somewhere. She'd probably have got home somehow.

The police searches focused very quickly on the park. I would imagine that something concrete led them there - be it CCTV or dashcam or witness statements. That is not somewhere safe. After his arrest they searched a bench.

As you say - there is no good reason to go to a freezing cold, isolated park with a very vulnerable girl.

The time frame police seem interested in is 11pm to 3am. That's the period they requested info for - including the Croda CCTV which is close to that park. It's reasonable to assume there are reasons for that. So is it possible that CCTV footage doesn't show his car leaving the parks vicinity till around that time?

Spidercam is 12.10. That's a depressingly long time frame for a reasonable version.

So surely all reasonable versions start to fall down with the park and the time. As @Cherwell has pointed out she was not capable of consenting to anything should he have claimed that is why he went there. I can see no other reason to go there.

If he admits to rape (even if just by trying to claim consent) and then to leaving her there - she would have to have fallen prey to another predator. In a freezing cold, isolated park. Surely the probabilities of that are tiny

So the only versions I can think of where he could reasonably claim to leaving her after an inordinately long time are that that somehow she died of natural causes or she was attacked by someone else. Neither seem reasonable.

I hope he pleads guilty. Her loved ones shouldn't have to live through any more.

 

[Mommysleuth11]

@Newthoughts i think you and I are now on pretty much the same exact page. Have to agree with each point you make. Sadly i dont think PR left that park before 02.30 and i think CCTV probably coroborates if not 'proves' that.

 

[JosieJo]

If he was around the park area till 2.30 it will be very difficult for him to justify