GUILTY UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, found deceased, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #25

[JosieJo]

We have the cctv evidence from before the rape and the statements of many witnesses by which we could infer she wasn't able to stand up on her own unless helped.
ETA I am weaving this as I read and think more jmo

"In cross-examination by defence barrister Oliver Saxby QC asked Prof Deakin whether Libby could have come to harm accidentally as a result of her condition.

The expert confirmed Libby may have struggled to find her way home and could have run into difficulty.

Mr Saxby said: “May she have taken the wrong route or got lost? May she have been unaware of obvious danger?”

Professor Deakin said: “Her assessment of danger is likely to be impaired.”

It seems the "hypothermia expert" still thought her capable of trying to walk home after the attack"

Vulnerable Libby would have 'struggled to defend herself' - trial

 

[ChiCubs2016]

"In cross-examination by defence barrister Oliver Saxby QC asked Prof Deakin whether Libby could have come to harm accidentally as a result of her condition.

The expert confirmed Libby may have struggled to find her way home and could have run into difficulty.

Mr Saxby said: “May she have taken the wrong route or got lost? May she have been unaware of obvious danger?”

Professor Deakin said: “Her assessment of danger is likely to be impaired.”

It seems the "hypothermia expert" still thought her capable of trying to walk home after the attack"

Vulnerable Libby would have 'struggled to defend herself' - trial

Now to be fair, the expert did not say after she was attacked.
Edit to clarify

 

[C.greek]

"In cross-examination by defence barrister Oliver Saxby QC asked Prof Deakin whether Libby could have come to harm accidentally as a result of her condition.

The expert confirmed Libby may have struggled to find her way home and could have run into difficulty.

Mr Saxby said: “May she have taken the wrong route or got lost? May she have been unaware of obvious danger?”

Professor Deakin said: “Her assessment of danger is likely to be impaired.”

It seems the "hypothermia expert" still thought her capable of trying to walk home after the attack"

Vulnerable Libby would have 'struggled to defend herself' - trial

This is not in response to my comment about whether she was able to stand up though as far as I can see. It is related to her being confused. And ETA nowhere is it mentioned after the rape since the defence does not consider the attack as attack/rape but rather as a one night stand

 

[JosieJo]

Vulnerable Libby would have 'struggled to defend herself' - trial

I thought he was
Parking at 12.11
Back in car by 12.19
Pulling out and turning left onto bev road 12.20 he then incates right.
Hes only got to go down Cottingham road which his indicators say he did straight down (Newland Ave my opinion) onto Raglan st his address...done ...

5 mins on a bicycle the roads looked empty that night to in the days its usually busy. So hopefully the jury will have been informed of the distance and the fact there was hardly any traffic that night.

I'm not saying these distances are impossible...just that arriving at oak rd by car and being back home 11 minutes later are "tight"[/QUOTE]

 

[JosieJo]

Now to be fair, the expert did not say after she was attacked.
Edit to clarify

The defence was questioning about misadventure after the attack at the time ..we only have snippets but the inference is certainly in relation to after

But either way we have had no evidence presented in court to say she would definitely not be able to walk at that time ..therefore it has to be considered possible

 

[Loobyloo]

<snip>
At the point he was arrested and questioned Libby hadn’t been found and only he would know she was in the water, so he had to keep his version of events far away from the river.

<snip>
I just think he had to deny being anywhere near that river because he knew that’s where she ended up.
Imagine his dismay when, having told the police he had sex with Libby on Oak Road, a witness came forward to report screaming near the pond and an alleged fleeing man. And again when Libby was found in the sea. And again when his semen was found in the post mortem.

Is the sequence of events slipping a bit here?

He didn't acknowledge any sexual contact with Libby until he was presented with the DNA evidence - not before she was found & not before the evidence of screaming.
Once he added the sex to his account, I think the only further change was to specify that it happened at the green shed. Not sure if that was in version 5 (expected defence) or version 6 (answers in court).
Libby Squire trial - the five versions of what happened that night

I think it's important to keep this in mind, as it confirms the way he moulds his story to the evidence. If he'd told the police about Oak Road sex when he was first questioned, his evasive dishonesty wouldn't have been quite so blatant.

 

[JosieJo]

This is not in response to my comment about whether she was able to stand up though as far as I can see. It is related to her being confused. And ETA nowhere is it mentioned after the rape since the defence does not consider the attack as attack/rape but rather as a one night stand

He states could she have come to harm herself ..as we know she was unharmed as such when she got in his car ...the snippets are in relation to after the attack

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Is the sequence of events slipping a bit here?

He didn't acknowledge any sexual contact with Libby until he was presented with the DNA evidence - not before she was found & not before the evidence of screaming.
Once he added the sex to his account, I think the only further change was to specify that it happened at the green shed. Not sure if that was in version 5 (expected defence) or version 6 (answers in court).
Libby Squire trial - the five versions of what happened that night

I think it's important to keep this in mind, as it confirms the way he moulds his story to the evidence. If he'd told the police about Oak Road sex when he was first questioned, his evasive dishonesty wouldn't have been quite so blatant.

You’re right, he didn’t admit to sex until later. Can you remember how version 1 and 2 went, and later on how he explained being parked at Oak Road?

 

[Deleted member 239019]

Vulnerable Libby would have 'struggled to defend herself' - trial


I'm not saying these distances are impossible...just that arriving at oak rd by car and being back home 11 minutes later are "tight"

[/QUOTE]

Yes I understand, but I was just showing to your comment that it might be tight but it all happened in a small tight area

 

[Loobyloo]

The defence was questioning about misadventure after the attack at the time ..we only have snippets but the inference is certainly in relation to after

But either way we have had no evidence presented in court to say she would definitely not be able to walk at that time ..therefore it has to be considered possible

Obviously the defence was having to play it carefully. They couldn't argue that having just been raped would further impair her ability to walk, given that they were rejecting the idea she'd been raped.

 

[C.greek]

He states could she have come to harm herself ..as we know she was unharmed as such when she got in his car ...the snippets are in relation to after the attack

Last post from me for today! Need to go to bed! My thinking was that judging from cctv and witness statements she was unable to stand up by herself, she needed help. Once up she could indeed walk. Nobody has questioned this and it remains a real possibility she wouldn't be able to.

 

[JosieJo]

Obviously the defence was having to play it carefully. They couldn't argue that having just been raped would further impair her ability to walk, given that they were rejecting the idea she'd been raped.

But the prosecution didn't put forward and specialist either to say that a further 15 min after being "raped" it was be extremely unlikely she would be able to get up and walk?

 

[Loobyloo]

You’re right, he didn’t admit to sex until later. Can you remember how version 1 and 2 went, and later on how he explained being parked at Oak Road?

All 5 versions are outlined in the article I linked to. The first one claimed he stopped there so Libby could get out to be sick (& for him to pee).
He didn't bother telling his friends or work colleague anything about Oak Road - presumably because he knew they didn't have any CCTV evidence that needed explaining away!

 

[JosieJo]

Last post from me for today! Need to go to bed! My thinking was that judging from cctv and witness statements she was unable to stand up by herself, she needed help. Once up she could indeed walk. Nobody has questioned this and it remains a real possibility she wouldn't be able to.

Most of the witnesses said they helped her up ..imo that would be a natural instinct so not proof as such she couldn't
Two of the witnesses say she got up herself

If virtually impossible to be able to stand and walk to some degree I'm sure the prosecution would have had an expert say that ...as far as we know they haven't

 

[Loobyloo]

But the prosecution didn't put forward and specialist either to say that a further 15 min after being "raped" it was be extremely unlikely she would be able to get up and walk?

Perhaps the prosecution didn't ask.

 

[Tortoise]

Perhaps the prosecution didn't ask.

That would have been a massive oversight. IMO

 

[JosieJo]

Perhaps the prosecution didn't ask.

Would of been very lax of them if not

 

[ChiCubs2016]

The defence was questioning about misadventure after the attack at the time ..we only have snippets but the inference is certainly in relation to after

But either way we have had no evidence presented in court to say she would definitely not be able to walk at that time ..therefore it has to be considered possible

I respectfully disagree. The defense does not reference being attacked at all. The have stated consensual sex so they would not ask the expert to opine on if Libby would be able to walk after being attacked/raped. And they also could not ask if Libby would be able to walk after consensual sex as the expert had just stated her judgement would have been impaired. And the defense did not question her judgment being impaired or that she would not be able to defend herself. So they latched on to not being able to recognize danger. So they asked about misadventure. That is all they could ask. IMHO
But again, I have to add, maybe everything was not reported and if not, I will gladly take any new information into account.

 

[Via Marple]

If this was the case he still wouldn't deserve any benefit of the doubt. He chose to go out that night to stalk women (for three hours?). He then chose to stalk Libby. He then chose to be violent. When you've made that decision you deserve to be held responsible for the consequences of the events you have put in motion. He's not the victim of that night's events. I don't how see he deserves any consideration.

Would you feel the same about the 7.5 minutes (plus 4.5) if he was a soldier, or fireman, or athlete?
We don't know his exact level of fitness but he was definitely a lot fitter than most to be doing the job he was.

BBM

Agree absolutely.

In Australia there is the "no body, no parole" law in a few states.

It would not be unreasonable then to say, proven liar, no benefit of doubt.

MOO JMO IMHO .....

 

[JosieJo]

I respectfully disagree. The defense does not reference being attacked at all. The have stated consensual sex so they would not ask the expert to opine on if Libby would be able to walk after being attacked/raped. And they also could not ask if Libby would be able to walk after consensual sex as the expert had just stated her judgement would have been impaired. And the defense did not question her judgment being impaired or that she would not be able to defend herself. So they latched on to not being able to recognize danger. So they asked about misadventure. That is all they could ask. IMHO
But again, I have to add, maybe everything was not reported and if not, I will gladly take any new information into account.

Attacked was just the reference point I made..I consider attacked ..though of course the defence would not use that word.
Its difficult to explain in text ...but the defence tried to relate her condition described, to coming to harm herself rather than by him.
As far as we can tell the expert does not contradict the defence talking about her condition and vulnerabilities after the "event" ...as in more to do with timeframe .
Of course whatever he did to her could have effected her abilities if he left her alive.
But as far as we can tell no evidence has been presented as such ...hope that makes more sense