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

[JosieJo]

Dbm

 

[JosieJo]

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

We have no evidence to show he killed her by silencing her ....if we did he would have been convicted last week imo

 

[Dotta]

So using a utilitarian stance perhaps it's better for everyone (save PR) that he is convicted even if innocent.

Does unethical lead to happiness Steve?

 

[NorthernSoul]

I wonder whether sometimes, after a verdict, the judge goes home thinking how on earth did they come to that conclusion? After hearing the prosecution and defence there must be a certain frustration in not knowing how the verdict was reached.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I just don't see enough evidence to convict him for murder.

The big problem for me is the timings.

But we know there are gaps in the reporting. For example, last night I quoted the HDM coverage about the footprints. I am quite sure PR was asked further questions about that, since he admitted he could see her footprints on the third visit, but we don’t know what the outcome was.

Hopefully there are a few more crucial nuggets of information that the jury have and we don’t!

 

[JosieJo]

Tortoise set up the poll to be private for members only to read, after they have voted.

would you consider editing your post ?

Yes of course no problem

 

[mrazda71]

I for one would absolutely NOT like verdicts to be reached purely by judges.

If only because A, that could lead to manipulation/corruption and B, mostly because there are still judges & legal professionals who tell rape victims during trials that they shouldn't have worn skimpy knickers or been out on their own or had too much to drink ... even worse, there are some who think that a 'a womans body can just shut down and not allow penetration if she doesn't want sex' ... *facepalm*

 

[Cherwell]

But we know there are gaps in the reporting. For example, last night I quoted the HDM coverage about the footprints. I am quite sure PR was asked further questions about that, since he admitted he could see her footprints on the third visit, but we don’t know what the outcome was.
Hopefully there are a few more crucial nuggets of information that the jury have and we don’t!

This is why I haven't voted in the poll. I think he probably killed her, possibly accidentally, but I haven't seen/heard enough evidence to be sure.

 

[Ktboo]

I wonder whether sometimes, after a verdict, the judge goes home thinking how on earth did they come to that conclusion? After hearing the prosecution and defence there must be a certain frustration in not knowing how the verdict was reached.

I think the same goes for the Police on the case too. My partner was a juror on a trial about 10 years ago. They found the defendant not guilty and the investigator on the case was apparently visibly angry in the courtroom

 

[JosieJo]

But we know there are gaps in the reporting. For example, last night I quoted the HDM coverage about the footprints. I am quite sure PR was asked further questions about that, since he admitted he could see her footprints on the third visit, but we don’t know what the outcome was.

Hopefully there are a few more crucial nuggets of information that the jury have and we don’t!

There seems to be discussions around misadventure not reported also ...just a brief mention they occurred...yet reporting concentrated on the suicide aspect...which imo is extremely unlikely
Its impossible to know how the defence presented that and the effect it had on the jury

 

[Sooty]

Definitely the reporting has an influence on those of us following from outside the courtroom.
If we were there, we not only would have the benefit of the full evidence available to be considered, but also no reporting bias, just our own opinions on how the witnesses presented etc.

 

[Newthoughts]

I for one would absolutely NOT like verdicts to be reached purely by judges.

If only because A, that could lead to manipulation/corruption and B, mostly because there are still judges & legal professionals who tell rape victims during trials that they shouldn't have worn skimpy knickers or been out on their own or had too much to drink ... even worse, there are some who think that a 'a womans body can just shut down and not allow penetration if she doesn't want sex' ... *facepalm*

I agree but I'm not sure this is working very well either.

Perhaps some kind of explanation of the law is needed at the start.

Like how to infer circumstantial evidence. How to narrow it down to reasonable options etc. Greater freedom for experts to offer informed opinions etc

 

[bos]

I for one would absolutely NOT like verdicts to be reached purely by judges.

If only because A, that could lead to manipulation/corruption and B, mostly because there are still judges & legal professionals who tell rape victims during trials that they shouldn't have worn skimpy knickers or been out on their own or had too much to drink ... even worse, there are some who think that a 'a womans body can just shut down and not allow penetration if she doesn't want sex' ... *facepalm*

Judges are seen by many to be “elite” (Enemies of the People anyone?). Justice shouldn’t just be done, it should be seen to be done. The latter is more likely if the verdict reached by a cross-section rather than one strata of society.

Mind you, a minimum test to ensure some deductive reasoning/logic skills are present rather than tabloid-induced outrage might help

 

[tigerowl]

I think a trial must be done by a group of people. One polarised opinion is unfair for many reasons.

In an ideal world it would be great if all juries consisted of a panel of experts who could argue for and against based on knowledge as well as judgement - but as that is never going to happen, a jury of peers is the next best thing.

 

[JosieJo]

I agree but I'm not sure this is working very well either.

Perhaps some kind of explanation of the law is needed at the start.

Like how to infer circumstantial evidence. How to narrow it down to reasonable options etc. Greater freedom for experts to offer informed opinions etc

I think the judge has likely done this ...also the jury can ask for legal direction from the judge at any point.
I think also the jury have documents similar to pathways to follow for direction.
I suppose the problem with experts to give "general opinion" both the defence and prosecution would be entitled to one and likely could both get one to fit their own version in complex cases

 

[NorthernSoul]

Judges are seen by many to be “elite” (Enemies of the People anyone?). Justice shouldn’t just be done, it should be seen to be done. The latter is more likely if the verdict reached by a cross-section rather than one strata of society.

Mind you, a minimum test to ensure some deductive reasoning/logic skills are present rather than tabloid-induced outrage might help

The thing I have noticed is that people from all walks of life have a valuable contribution to make. Some are highly educated and eloquent, others may have much more practical real-world experience even though they are not very academically-minded. I do like the Jury system for this reason.

 

[Niner]

15:59
Jury sent home

The jury has been sent home for the day having not reached any verdict yet.

They have so far deliberated for more than ten hours and will return again tomorrow.

Well shoot - I've come up with 12 hours 45 minutes. Does that mean they took about an hour of lunch on Friday & today?

 

[Dotta]

The thing I have noticed is that people from all walks of life have a valuable contribution to make. Some are highly educated and eloquent, others may have much more practical real-world experience even though they are not very academically-minded. I do like the Jury system for this reason.

Jurors are the voice of ordinary people. They represent all citizens so that's why they are respected - they symbolise free society.

 

[bos]

I did read something (somewhere down one of the many internet rabbit holes I’ve gone down lately) about judges explaining things before the evidence was presented making it easier for juries as they knew where to concentrate their minds. *Helpful*

 

[bos]

Well shoot - I've come up with 12 hours 45 minutes. Does that mean they took about an hour of lunch on Friday & today?

I don’t know - reporter could be basing it around the typical courtroom day of 10:30-4:30(earlier finish Friday & today) with 1-2 lunch & shorter breaks am & pm rather than direct knowledge