UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #22

[Sally4x]

Perhaps it was snagged at some point (& missed by searches), which is why it took several weeks to make its way to the place it was spotted.

I remember that there was a report of a body in the Humber about a week before Libby was found and when the police went they didn’t see anything. IMO it was Libby moving along the estuary.

 

[Zazie]

We've heard the edited highlights of salient point. We didn't even know till yesterday that only her jacket was missing. I'm sure a full list of clothing would have been detailed.

Re jacket, I always felt the Haworth Spidercam appeared to show Libby being 'helped' out of her jacket which was then put into the passenger footwell. Others disagreed and only saw the seatbelt manoeuvres. If so, this could mean Libby had even less protection against cold if she left the car without it. I don't know when PR would have disposed of her jacket though - I'm assuming police have CCTV of him arriving home at Raglan St at 12.23, so guessing he can't have removed it then. All speculation, obvs.

I wonder (assuming there is some sort of 'specialist' sexual activity in ORPF) if he uses his drone to do his voyeuristic stuff.

Do we know the date of the drone footage? I read the reported reference to prosecutors saying the footage dated from 'a couple of days earlier' but wasn't sure if that meant two days before Libby's death or two days before the house search.

 

[Ruthbullock]

We Can't Consent To This
A great charity doing fantastic work- whilst reading about all these women, thankfully the majority have been found guilty of murder, but there are also far too many who have been charged with manslaughter or had the charges dropped. It’s worth a read, as a lot include claims that it was consensual but involved drugs or alcohol in significant amounts.

 

[JosieJo]

For murder he Just had to have intent to cause serious harm or injury combined with death as a result. That is satisfied.

Yes absolutely..my comment just relates to what his actual intentions were that night rather than its stance in law

 

[Newthoughts]

I wonder (assuming there is some sort of 'specialist' sexual activity in ORPF) if he uses his drone to do his voyeuristic stuff.

I've not seen evidence that ORPF is a sight of specialist sexual activity and his previous offences seem to suggest, that, unlike many voyeurs, he gets a kick from being seen. Certainly the prosecutor said it would have been dark ans quiet

It was clearly dark and empty on the night in question.

As others have mentioned drones are noisy

We don't have a time for that drone footage - I'd assumed it was day time when it's an ordinary park but that might be naive of me and I might have missed it being mentioned if it was night time

I don't know how good night time drone footage would be. Even if it's good there didn't seem to be much to see on the night in question so can't see why there would have been the night before. They would have been witnesses anyway

So I don't think it's to do with his voyeurism per se but I do think it could possibly be to help get a really good idea of the park as a site to attack someone. Even more so if it was night time footage.

That's just my opinion tho

 

[Zazie]

Agreed, specifically him ripping off letter boxes from a door of a women who he had offended against for 18 months. That's a violent act in my opinion.

Ugh, that's the first time I'd heard this detail from the earlier charges - that's terrifying and nothing like passive voyeurism, for sure.

"On January 13, 2019, the woman was at home at midnight when she saw two hands come through the letterbox and Relowicz's face again. The woman shouted "For *advertiser censored*** sake" and stood up but Relowicz left. She has had two letterboxes ripped out of her door in the time she has lived in her home. Prosecution believe a significant degree of planning went into the act."
Every twisted act committed by sexual predator Pawel Relowicz

 

[Newthoughts]

Ugh, that's the first time I'd heard this detail from the earlier charges - that's terrifying and nothing like passive voyeurism, for sure.

"On January 13, 2019, the woman was at home at midnight when she saw two hands come through the letterbox and Relowicz's face again. The woman shouted "For *advertiser censored*** sake" and stood up but Relowicz left. She has had two letterboxes ripped out of her door in the time she has lived in her home. Prosecution believe a significant degree of planning went into the act."
Every twisted act committed by sexual predator Pawel Relowicz

Yes didn't the prosecution claim a great deal of planning went into his previous offences. The judge concurred and said he was a danger and sentenced him to 8.5 years despite low maximum sentences for each individual crime.

So I really don't think this offence would be different.

 

[JosieJo]

I feel this is how it stands at the moment based on the small amount we know ...

Rape charge ..id "be sure" enough to go guilty without any further thought

I feel with the closing speeches prosecution will again focus on the lies and past convictions and his further actions of sexual deviance that night.

The defence ( going last ) will then try to push to the jury that the lies "could" be for a different reason
The tight timeline
The inconclusive post mortem
The screams from all witnesses put them at a time when at best PR was back at his car

The judge as we know will then direct the to look at each charge separately and say they have to "be sure" she was dead when he left the park or be sure he put her in the river himself

I'm not 100% sure i could "be sure" on the murder

I thinks its all going to boil down to whether the Jury "want him to be guilty" so much they are blindsided by the facts ....or what they have seen and heard in court that we haven't is more compelling

 

[JosieJo]

Regards the drone footage id need to know how often it was used ...what other areas did he look at with it ....what did he zone in on at oak rd fields? Etc I couldn't say what his intentions were with the drone without that information...as said its the only open space round there so maybe people have flown drones there many a time

 

[Cherwell]

Do you have a link to the original quoted statement?

I don't have time to look now, but it was from the HDM.
If it's since been edited I will stand corrected, but it seems far more likely to me that, at a distance, a witness would notice the colour of a garment (dark v. light) rather than tightness.

 

[Vera_dci]

We Can't Consent To This
A great charity doing fantastic work- whilst reading about all these women, thankfully the majority have been found guilty of murder, but there are also far too many who have been charged with manslaughter or had the charges dropped. It’s worth a read, as a lot include claims that it was consensual but involved drugs or alcohol in significant amounts.

Thanks for sharing this. Far too many women are on that list. How many more women are going to lose their life before laws change. I can remember being outraged at the sentence given to John Broadhurst .....3years is an absolute joke for murder.

 

[Steve2021]

1. As I understand it, whilst there are inconsistencies over the precise timings, Sam Alford saw a man in the park around the time of the screams and around the time PW left. He plotted on a map 3 points at which he saw him, and he described his clothing.

1. Have we seen the map? I assume not.
2. Has anyone here identified the likely brand of jeans/joggers PW is seen wearing that night? If so a picture would be helpful so we can compare it to Mr Alford's evidence (though there appears some confusion over what that was, tight v light).

Of course we don't know how certain when questioned Mr Alford's was as to a. the clothing, the size, general appearance of the man, or the gait of his fast walk, b. the timings of his sightings. This is however critically important.

 

[Miss_French]

I don't have time to look now, but it was from the HDM.
If it's since been edited I will stand corrected, but it seems far more likely to me that, at a distance, a witness would notice the colour of a garment (dark v. light) rather than tightness.

It's neither 'tight' nor 'light' but 'fitted' and 'dark' as reported on 21 Jan:

'He said the man was wearing either “fitted dark coloured joggers” or “cuffed jeans” and a “bomber style jacket.” '

Libby Squire trial told of 'desperate screams' at playing fields

 

[Sooty]

The cctv at Tesco petrol station from earlier has his clothing on show a bit more. To me it looks like he was wearing light coloured jeans and a camo type jacket - hard to tell the style - my eyesight for cctv is not great though. I imagine gauging what someone was wearing from a distance at night (as Mr Alford did) is not easy either.

 

[tedtink]

and if it takes 5-7 mins to kill someone?

It would take less time to render someone unconscious.

The timing is very tight but possible.
A sexually charged, aggressive, strong man, the act itself could take just a couple of minutes, especially as Libby wasn't able to defend herself as well. I do think he may have covered her mouth to stop her screams, possibly resulting in unconsciousness, like others have suggested.

Due to the limited time spent in the park during the rape, he had no time to ascertain whether she was dead or not.
He'd had time to reflect on his actions at home and although still on a sexual high, needed to know whether she was still where he had left her.
If she hadn't have been, he could then concoct his story if she, say, went to the Police.
It's at this stage on the 3rd visit, presumed dead after being there for a couple of hours, he found her and decided to dump her in the river.
Either way he was going back to cover his tracks.
JMO. MOO.

 

[catgreen]

Yeah, exactly, everyone who escalates has to have a first victim they escalate with an looks like poor Libby was his, but my only thinking is, does he escalate to rape AND murder, would it not just be rape as there’s a chance he could get away with that, victim can’t remember, doesn’t report it etc so he then has a chance to do it again another time, but murder is a whole different story, that won’t go unreported and so he would have to lay low with the police all over the place, no chance to even commit his usual offences.. I don’t know, I’m just struggling with a pre meditated or even deliberate murder...he left her in a state which caused her death though but unfortunately I don’t think that can be classed as murder.. all my opinion..

@Sarahjo you say murder 'wont go unreported' but if someone simply goes missing (as many do each year) and there is nothing to link you with the victim then why worry? in this case the recovery of the body changed everything

 

[Skigh]

1. As I understand it, whilst there are inconsistencies over the precise timings, Sam Alford saw a man in the park around the time of the screams and around the time PW left. He plotted on a map 3 points at which he saw him, and he described his clothing.

1. Have we seen the map? I assume not.
2. Has anyone here identified the likely brand of jeans/joggers PW is seen wearing that night? If so a picture would be helpful so we can compare it to Mr Alford's evidence (though there appears some confusion over what that was, tight v light).

Of course we don't know how certain when questioned Mr Alford's was as to a. the clothing, the size, general appearance of the man, or the gait of his fast walk, b. the timings of his sightings. This is however critically important.

I must have missed the fact Sam plotted on a map the three points he saw PR in the park. I just had read he saw him walking hurriedly out of the park. Do you know where in the park PR was seen by Sam?

 

[Winterbells]

It's neither 'tight' nor 'light' but 'fitted' and 'dark' as reported on 21 Jan:

'He said the man was wearing either “fitted dark coloured joggers” or “cuffed jeans” and a “bomber style jacket.” '

Libby Squire trial told of 'desperate screams' at playing fields

CCTV obtained by ITV News is shown to jury in Libby Squire murder trial | ITV News

A little way down you can watch the spidercam footage and see his trousers. When he takes something (condom?) out of his pocket, it doesn't look like the pocket of tight jeans to me, same when he puts it back in. They look like joggers which are tighter below the knee and looser above the knee.

 

[Newthoughts]

I feel this is how it stands at the moment based on the small amount we know ...

Rape charge ..id "be sure" enough to go guilty without any further thought

I feel with the closing speeches prosecution will again focus on the lies and past convictions and his further actions of sexual deviance that night.

The defence ( going last ) will then try to push to the jury that the lies "could" be for a different reason
The tight timeline
The inconclusive post mortem
The screams from all witnesses put them at a time when at best PR was back at his car

The judge as we know will then direct the to look at each charge separately and say they have to "be sure" she was dead when he left the park or be sure he put her in the river himself

I'm not 100% sure i could "be sure" on the murder

I thinks its all going to boil down to whether the Jury "want him to be guilty" so much they are blindsided by the facts ....or what they have seen and heard in court that we haven't is more compelling

I'm not sure they can want him to be guilty? Surely they can only judge on the balance of evidence and the way that can be interpreted within the law. You can never be 100% sure it's mainly sure.

We don't know what the jury knows but from the very small amount we do know rape is a violent act which would cause harm which could lead to death and which he could have Stopped. That would be murder.

He stalked her and took her to another place - again opportunities to stop or to just rape. He could have done something in the Endsleigh Centre - dark, no cameras.

Whether she was dead or unconscious when put in the river if she died as a result of that act. That would be murder.

For me I can't see any other way in which I think I could reasonably explain his actions before or after that happened. Especially the later show of confidence that he wasn't going to get caught.

For me also I can't see any other reasonable way in which she could have ended up in the river given what we know from the expert witnesses on her ability to walk and run, from what I've seen of the river in the park and from where she was found.

Especially from where he claims to have left her which would have involved heading into the dark after a rape and getting to the river.

The judge at his previous trial believed his actions were not opportunistic. Therefore why would he change now?

His previous actions were geared towards terrorising women.

From what little we've seen of the expert testimony I felt what the pathologist couldn't absolutely exclude and what he felt was more likely of the explanations differed. I felt like he veered towards asphyxiation. Whilst that could just be the way it was reported the prosecution said they do not have prove cause of death anyway.

But thats my opinion and is only based on what we've heard which is a fraction of what the jury have heard.

But based on everything taken together I think he's guilty of the rape, which is an act which would cause harm that could result in death. He's guilty of murder.

 

[phildav76]

I agree that PR's clothing is a problem for the prosecution as Sam Alford said the man he saw leaving the park was wearing a "Bomber Jacket" while the Tesco CCTV footage has him wearing a camouflage styled one.

Looking back at the newspaper reports from February 2019 the screams lasted from 00:15 to 00:30. Link