I realise I am being a bit pedantic, but I find it really difficult to accept ‘as fact’ that which we don’t have any evidence for, and that which can have more than one possible inference. Surely reaching a conclusion from an event that has two more more possible inferences is still speculation?
Edited for clarification.
No case will ever yield total proof and 100% certainty tho. Or very few.
Earlier on
@bos posted a really good post about determining beyond all reasonable doubt.
Realistically there are limited versions of what happened between PR arriving at Oak Road and Libby ending up in the river. The job is to decide what is plausible using everything you know. Prior offending, later behaviour, lies, subtle hints.
"Mr Saxby has already invited the jury to consider misadventure."
Libby Squire murder trial live: Defence gives closing statement
"Mr Saxby has already invited the jury to consider misadventure."
Libby Squire murder trial live: Defence gives closing statement
They did indeed - the tortured soul stuff wandering off stuff.
That's why I said I 'suspect' even they don't 'believe' misadventure is possible from there. I was offering my opinions. IMO misadventure from outside the park is unlikely.
That's their best, and probably only realistic defence I would expect a lot more about Libby's ability to walk that night. Lots more about parts of the river with steeper sides. Lots more about clearer pathways to it.
More about her youth and resilience rather than her mental health. More about screams in Oak Road before she sets off rather than in the park. Things that would make it more likely than just wandering off and finding the river.
IMO I'd expect a good defence to put PR at least some way into the park with Libby to help misadventure as explicit testimony rather than hints about accepting some lies. But that's my opinion only and I wouldn't feel I had to accept that lie
If I can offer another opinion - I suspect the defence don't believe much of the rest of PRs story either. But quite rightly - everyone deserves a fair trial.
Based on other evidence I think guilty. But I haven't heard it all
You think him not guilty.
I think the jury will find him not guilty as well.