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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was going to say as much as i loathe PR I wouldn't want him found guilty for something he's not done. But then I thought may be I would or at any rate wouldn't have a problem if he was, because a. the only way he's likely to get a sentence that we the public of the UK feel is appropriate for rape is if he is found guilty of murder, and b. it may bring Libby's parents a bit more comfort. So using a utilitarian stance perhaps it's better for everyone (save PR) that he is convicted even if innocent.
 
Lethal hypothermia – a sometimes elusive diagnosis

So it seems as though a common way of ascertaining whether death has occurred due to hypothermia is the presence of particular markings on the stomach lining due to the micro circulation failing. These “spots” aren’t always present & whether they’d survive after weeks in the water is unclear.

It seems conceivable to me that Libby’s heart & breathing could have slowed so much/stopped with the exertions of attempting to fight PR off/being manhandled/rape that he assumed she was dead.

The defence wouldn’t ask about that likelihood as it would imply resistance rather than consent.

I wonder if the prosecution questioning established the possibility of this?
 
I actually prefer the jury take their time and deliberate. They have mounds of evidence to sort through. This is a complicated case IMO. If they came back right away I might wonder if they just wanted to get it over with. It is a duty of all jurors to make sure they ponder their verdict intelligently and properly, again IMO. Here in the states if you get put on jury, a lot of people would say “where you too dumb to get out of it?” It really boggles my mind that people think this way.
 
<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

ChiCubs2016 said:
I actually prefer the jury take their time and deliberate. They have mounds of evidence to sort through. This is a complicated case IMO. If they came back right away I might wonder if they just wanted to get it over with. It is a duty of all jurors to make sure they ponder their verdict intelligently and properly, again IMO. Here in the states if you get put on jury, a lot of people would say “where you too dumb to get out of it?” It really boggles my mind that people think this way.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ChiCubs2016 said:
I actually prefer the jury take their time and deliberate. They have mounds of evidence to sort through. This is a complicated case IMO. If they came back right away I might wonder if they just wanted to get it over with. It is a duty of all jurors to make sure they ponder their verdict intelligently and properly, again IMO. Here in the states if you get put on jury, a lot of people would say “where you too dumb to get out of it?” It really boggles my mind that people think this way.
Click to expand...
100%. The whole point of the jury is to weigh up evidence and question what has been said on either side. The last thing you want is for them to go into that room, say 'yeah whatever' and deliver a verdict 10 minutes later. They've given the last 4 weeks of their life to this, I am glad that they are giving the evidence the consideration it deserves. If I am ever on a jury I would want to make damn sure I am making the right decision; that means listening to the arguments of others and hopefully, eventually, coming to a consensus.
 
ChiCubs2016 said:
I actually prefer the jury take their time and deliberate. They have mounds of evidence to sort through. This is a complicated case IMO. If they came back right away I might wonder if they just wanted to get it over with. It is a duty of all jurors to make sure they ponder their verdict intelligently and properly, again IMO. Here in the states if you get put on jury, a lot of people would say “where you too dumb to get out of it?” It really boggles my mind that people think this way.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The time taken to appoint a foreman of the jury and maybe taking a vote on each of the charges before they start examining them in detail probably accounted for Thurs pm alone
 
C.greek said:
Not sure. Perhaps they are split as to what constitutes manslaughter versus murder? I am definitely confused since I don't think he planned to kill her but that it happened during the rape. What is that? Manslaughter? But if it is, hiding the evidence and the body afterwards would that be counted as murder? I don't know to be honest. For me the problem would be if they find him guilty of rape but not guilty of either manslaughter or murder... here's hoping for a guilty verdict altogether. Thinking of Libby's parents.
Click to expand...
You're not the only one confused

I don't think you have to plan to kill for it to be murder tho. As far as I can understand If you intend to cause serious bodily harm it counts.

You can't use, as an excuse, behaviour by the victim or use inherent weakness as an excuse.

This is my understanding - but I'm not a legal person so I'm probably way, way out.

So as I would interpret it as trying to silence someone during a rape is causing serious bodily harm that could lead to death. Or any violence during the rape that could lead to death. It's reasonable to assume that.

If Libby hadn't been vulnerable it might not have done - tho I think that's debatable.

But you cannot use as an excuse something like you only planned to rape and shut them up but they died because they were vulnerable because of their state. It seems to be your responsibility to accept the victim as they are "under the egg shell skull"

So any underlying dispositions and vulnerabilities are irrelevant as I read it.

So he couldn't use as an excuse, Libby's vulnerability. He couldn't assume that a non drunk, non hypothermic person might have survived his attempts to rape and silence her cos the onus, quite rightly, is on the killer not the victim. He didn't chose a sober victim.

Otherwise, I guess, you could quite legally attack vulnerable children or people with heart conditions or people who are vulnerable like Libby and say it's only because they're vulnerable.

That is how I'm understanding it but I'd welcome input from a qualified person.

The other thing it says is you cannot use the behaviour of a victim as an excuse. So as I understand that you can't say - I only planned to rape someone but they fought back or wouldn't shut up. The onus remains with the rapist not to kill them or it's murder.

That seems to apply to escape as well as far as I can see. If your victim dies as a result of escaping - the onus seems to remain with the killer.

As I'm reading it, as a rapist he should done a full health and safety check to avoid murder.

But as I say that's how I'm understanding it. A legal person needs to explain it

Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service
 
At least the jury are taking it seriously..there was always a danger here that emotion alongside his past convictions would lead to a knee jerk quick verdict
Looking at our poll ... even based on the small amount we have heard its quite split
The length of time it took to charge him also has a bearing on the difficulties and challenges of the evidence
 
Newthoughts said:
You're not the only one confused

I don't think you have to plan to kill for it to be murder tho. As far as I can understand If you intend to cause serious bodily harm it counts.

You can't use, as an excuse, behaviour by the victim or use inherent weakness as an excuse.

This is my understanding - but I'm not a legal person so I'm probably way, way out.

So as I would interpret it as trying to silence someone during a rape is causing serious bodily harm that could lead to death. Or any violence during the rape that could lead to death. It's reasonable to assume that.

If Libby hadn't been vulnerable it might not have done - tho I think that's debatable.

But you cannot use as an excuse something like you only planned to rape and shut them up but they died because they were vulnerable because of their state. It seems to be your responsibility to accept the victim as they are "under the egg shell skull"

So any underlying dispositions and vulnerabilities are irrelevant as I read it.

So he couldn't use as an excuse, Libby's vulnerability. He couldn't assume that a non drunk, non hypothermic person might have survived his attempts to rape and silence her cos the onus, quite rightly, is on the killer not the victim. He didn't chose a sober victim.

Otherwise, I guess, you could quite legally attack vulnerable children or people with heart conditions or people who are vulnerable like Libby and say it's only because they're vulnerable.

That is how I'm understanding it but I'd welcome input from a qualified person.

The other thing it says is you cannot use the behaviour of a victim as an excuse. So as I understand that you can't say - I only planned to rape someone but they fought back or wouldn't shut up. The onus remains with the rapist not to kill them or it's murder.

That seems to apply to escape as well as far as I can see. If your victim dies as a result of escaping - the onus seems to remain with the killer.

As I'm reading it, as a rapist he should done a full health and safety check to avoid murder.

But as I say that's how I'm understanding it. A legal person needs to explain it

Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service
Click to expand...
Silencing Libby is not an indisputable fact of the case. Screams are very much a part of the evidence, as are timings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 160 more.
Total: 1,766 (members: 161, guests: 1,605)

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
1,605
Total visitors
1,766
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,485
Messages
18,095,872
Members
230,862
Latest member
jusslikeme
Back
Top