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

[C.greek]

I take your point but the pathologist hasn't disregarded it. More what I was saying is that we can all have our own leaning towards what we believe is most likely, but I would have assumed that if the pathologist believed one of the options was more likely than the other based on the evidence then they would have said that. To be honest, I don't know if that is true -but I don't usually follow court cases so this is all quite new to me.

For me as well, this is the first case I follow here but I've read a lot of articles on forensics and autopsies and the guidelines pathologists are given for their reporting. For example, had there been no foul play in the horizon, and no tell-tale signs of drowning, the cause of death would not have been deemed unascertained but rather immersion in water.

 

[Alyce]

We should talk about why the judge hasn’t yet offered a majority verdict option, as would be fairly typical after this long.

Is it because the jury are very close to a unanimous decision, and that would of course be preferable and worth the wait?

Or is it because they’re so evenly split it wouldn’t make a jot of difference either way?

Or... she’s just not got round to it yet. I feel like the minute she does, we’ll have a verdict.

I don’t know too much about her history, other than two cases she was involved in.
I would like to think the only reason she is holding back is your first option, close to unanimous.

However, if she offers a majority and we then get a quick verdict, I am going to be annoyed that it was not offered sooner.

all MOO of course

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I’d highly recommend this book by Dr. Richard Shepherd for those interested in the pathology side of things.

He has done over 20,000 post mortems and is renowned worldwide for his work on some extreme high profile cases. There are quite a few mentions about trials and police investigations, fascinating to see how the cogs work.

 

[Sprockett7701]

Waiting, waiting...and 8hrs or so in front of you guys...

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Waiting, waiting...and 8hrs or so in front of you guys...

Yaaay, you get to find out before we do! Keep us posted

 

[bos]

Drowning is an asphyxial death in which the body is deprived of oxygen as a result of impairment of pulmonary oxygen exchange after partial or complete submersion in a liquid, most commonly water.

Obviously one mechanism of this is water entering the airway & or lungs and what is generally regarded as drowning.

Another mechanism(much less common) is where the larynx aka voice box goes into spasm in response to cold water shock and the airway is blocked as a result of the spasm. This is known as dry drowning because it isn’t not caused by water entering the airway but occurs in water and stops respiration.

Pathologists classify this mechanism as drowning rather than as asphyxiation.

Libby’s voice box was examined closely & sent away for further tests and we’ve heard nothing obvious found

My conclusion MOO is that cold water shock has been examined as part of drowning investigations & placed in the same bracket of likelihood

 

[C.greek]

I’d highly recommend this book by Dr. Richard Shepherd for those interested in the pathology side of things.

He has done over 20,000 post mortems and is renowned worldwide for his work on some extreme high profile cases. There are quite a few mentions about trials and police investigations, fascinating to see how the cogs work.

View attachment 283590

This is a fascinating read - not academic (that I always prefer! Due to the careful albeit dry use of language) but well written and accessible.
If only the family had asked for a private post-mortem as well...

 

[Ruthbullock]

. The Royal College of Pathologists makes clear in its guidance for all pathologists that their primary duty is to the court. In its guidance for histopathologists it states that “the Coroner’s pathologist’s primary duty is to the Coroner and he or she must not act in any way that fails to acknowledge that duty.”21 In its guidance for forensic pathologists it states, “(the forensic pathologist)...has responsibilities to the criminal justice system, including the need to offer impartial evidence, the integrity of which is not compromised, and the need to present such evidence in a manner that is acceptable to others involved in the criminal justice system. The pathologist’s primary duty is to the court and he must not act in any way that fails to acknowledge that duty.”22 The guidance also explicitly states that forensic pathologists must comply “with the obligations placed on expert witnesses and, in particular, their overriding duty to the Court (see for example Part 33(2) Criminal Procedure Rules)”. The procedural rule concerns an expert’s duty to give objective and unbiased opinion to the court which overrides any obligation to the person from whom the expert receives instructions or by whom the expert is paid.
https://www.coronersociety.org.uk/_img/pics/pdf_1569321731-72.pdf
Can we please put to bed the discussion about choice of words implying things from the pathology report. It doesn’t and wouldn’t as it’s unprofessional and could cost them their career. If he could have made his report more precise of course he would have done.

 

[C.greek]

Dpd

 

[Ruthbullock]

Drowning is an asphyxial death in which the body is deprived of oxygen as a result of impairment of pulmonary oxygen exchange after partial or complete submersion in a liquid, most commonly water.

Obviously one mechanism of this is water entering the airway & or lungs and what is generally regarded as drowning.

Another mechanism(much less common) is where the larynx aka voice box goes into spasm in response to cold water shock and the airway is blocked as a result of the spasm. This is known as dry drowning because it isn’t not caused by water entering the airway but occurs in water and stops respiration.

Pathologists classify this mechanism as drowning rather than as asphyxiation.

Libby’s voice box was examined closely & sent away for further tests and we’ve heard nothing obvious found

My conclusion MOO is that cold water shock has been examined as part of drowning investigations & placed in the same bracket of likelihood

Thank you, every day is a school day

 

[C.greek]

. The Royal College of Pathologists makes clear in its guidance for all pathologists that their primary duty is to the court. In its guidance for histopathologists it states that “the Coroner’s pathologist’s primary duty is to the Coroner and he or she must not act in any way that fails to acknowledge that duty.”21 In its guidance for forensic pathologists it states, “(the forensic pathologist)...has responsibilities to the criminal justice system, including the need to offer impartial evidence, the integrity of which is not compromised, and the need to present such evidence in a manner that is acceptable to others involved in the criminal justice system. The pathologist’s primary duty is to the court and he must not act in any way that fails to acknowledge that duty.”22 The guidance also explicitly states that forensic pathologists must comply “with the obligations placed on expert witnesses and, in particular, their overriding duty to the Court (see for example Part 33(2) Criminal Procedure Rules)”. The procedural rule concerns an expert’s duty to give objective and unbiased opinion to the court which overrides any obligation to the person from whom the expert receives instructions or by whom the expert is paid.
https://www.coronersociety.org.uk/_img/pics/pdf_1569321731-72.pdf
Can we please put to bed the discussion about choice of words implying things from the pathology report. It doesn’t and wouldn’t as it’s unprofessional and could cost them their career. If he could have made his report more precise of course he would have done.

this doesn't say anything that contradicts their careful choice of words to report probabilities. It strengthens it. We are not talking about biases. If they could not exclude all causes of death with the same probability they would have stated it thus.

ETA this comes from a guideline by the way, and it states in the first page if I am not mistaken that it doesn't have to be followed word by word. Not that it makes any difference.

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

Only the judge knows when the time is right I think

From Crown Court Trial Part 6 - Verdict — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

When can a majority direction be given?

The Juries Act 1974 requires at least 2 hours to pass between a jury retiring and a majority direction being given, but the convention is to allow at least 2 hours and 10 minutes, to take into account the time it will take any jury to get from the courtroom to the jury room and back.

In practice it is rare for a judge to give a majority direction after such a short period of time.

Much depends on the complexity of the case and the issues involved. In a long and complex case it can be days before a majority direction is given. Often the judge will only give such a direction after discussion with the prosecution and defence dvocates.

Notwithstanding the precise timing of a majority direction, it is extremely important that a jury should never feel under pressure of time to reach a verdict.

I think it will be tomorrow, or certainly by Friday. I feel that they must have all the known facts now with clarification. I wouldn't be surprised to have the jury back saying they can't reach a majority, then the judge allows a 10-2. If it's more split than that, what happens then?

 

[Sooty]

Drowning is an asphyxial death in which the body is deprived of oxygen as a result of impairment of pulmonary oxygen exchange after partial or complete submersion in a liquid, most commonly water.

Obviously one mechanism of this is water entering the airway & or lungs and what is generally regarded as drowning.

Another mechanism(much less common) is where the larynx aka voice box goes into spasm in response to cold water shock and the airway is blocked as a result of the spasm. This is known as dry drowning because it isn’t not caused by water entering the airway but occurs in water and stops respiration.

Pathologists classify this mechanism as drowning rather than as asphyxiation.

Libby’s voice box was examined closely & sent away for further tests and we’ve heard nothing obvious found

My conclusion MOO is that cold water shock has been examined as part of drowning investigations & placed in the same bracket of likelihood

Learning so much here!

Would spasm still be present post mortem? I thought muscles and ligaments go into flaccidity post rigor mortis - but I am not a medic by any stretch of imagination!

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

If there is no majority and a verdict has not been reached, the jury is known as a 'hung jury'. The judge will discharge the jury and the trial will conclude, albeit without a verdict. After a hung jury, the accused will not be acquitted or convicted.

After a hung jury, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must then determine whether they will have a retrial. This is dependent on the views of the victim(s) or interested parties.

What happens when a Jury can’t reach a verdict? | Lawtons Solicitors UK

 

[Sooty]

DBM duplicate

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

Delivering the Verdict
When the jury have reached a verdict, they will notify the jury bailiff who, in turn, will notify the judge. The advocates will return to court, the defendant will return to the dock, people will return to the public gallery, the jury will be brought back in and the judge will then enter the courtroom.

The court clerk will ask the jury foreman to stand and ask, “Have you reached a verdict upon which you are all agreed? Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.”

If the answer is yes, the court clerk will ask, in respect of each individual count and each individual defendant, “What is your verdict?”

The foreman will respond either “Guilty” or “Not Guilty”.

Majority Verdicts - Does the verdict have to be unanimous?
When the jury first retire to consider their verdict they will be told that only a uninamous verdict can be accepted and, should a time arise when a majority verdict can be taken, they will be brought back into court and given further instructions:

“As you may know, the law permits me, in certain circumstances, to accept a verdict which is not the verdict of you all. Those circumstances have not as yet arisen, so that when you retire I must ask you to reach a verdict upon which each one of you is agreed. Should, however, the time come when it is possible for me to accept a majority verdict, I will give you a further direction.”
— Jury direction contained in Criminal Practice Direction VI:Trial, para 26Q.1: Majority Verdicts
These further instructions are known as the Majority Direction. Until this direction is given a majority verdict (in favour either of a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty) is not permitted.

The Majority Direction
There will be 12 jurors at the start of any criminal trial (and possibly additional reserve jurors in longer trials) but sometimes jurors are discharged during the trial due to illness or for some other good reason. The minimum number of jurors permitted to return a verdict is 9, so any less would require the trial to be aborted.

When it is decided to give a majority direction, the jury will be called back into court and asked by the clerk if they have reached a verdict on which they are all agreed.

If the answer is no, they will be given a majority direction which consists of being informed by the judge that when they retire again they should continue to try to reach a unanimous verdict, but the time has arrived at which a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty by a majority can be accepted.

They will be told what the permissible majority is and this will depend on the number of jurors left on the jury:

• 12 jurors - the majority verdict can be 11-1 or 10-2.
  
  
• 11 jurors - the majority verdict can only be 10-1.
  
  
• 10 jurors - the majority verdict can only be 9-1.
  
  
• 9 jurors - no majority verdict is permitted (so a majority direction could not be given to a jury of 9, or the jury would be instructed that a majority verdict would no longer be permitted once their number reduced to 9).
  

When can a majority direction be given?
The Juries Act 1974 requires at least 2 hours to pass between a jury retiring and a majority direction being given, but the convention is to allow at least 2 hours and 10 minutes, to take into account the time it will take any jury to get from the courtroom to the jury room and back.

In practice it is rare for a judge to give a majority direction after such a short period of time.

Much depends on the complexity of the case and the issues involved. In a long and complex case it can be days before a majority direction is given. Often the judge will only give such a direction after discussion with the prosecution and defence dvocates.

Notwithstanding the precise timing of a majority direction, it is extremely important that a jury should never feel under pressure of time to reach a verdict.

Taking the verdict after a majority direction
If a jury returns after receiving a majority direction, the court clerk will ask the foreman if at least 10 of them (or 9 if there are only 10 jurors) have agreed upon their verdict; if the answer is yes, the foreman will be asked for the verdict.

If the verdict is Guilty the foreman will be asked if that is ‘the verdict of you all or by a majority?’ If it is by a majority the next question is how many agreed and how many dissented?

If, on the other hand, the verdict is Not Guilty the court clerk will not ask how many agreed or dissented.

There is no difference in effect between a unanimous and a majority guilty verdict – both mean unequivocally that the defendant has been found guilty of the offence. As such there can be no reduction in sentence because a conviction was by a majority and a majority verdict does not provide of itself a ground of appeal.

Not Guilty Verdict
If the verdict is not guilty, the defendant will be discharged and free to leave court if (s)he is not facing other charges.

Even if a defendant faces no other charges but was brought into court from the cells, they will have to go back to the cells before being released to deal with the release paperwork and to collect their belongings.

Once a defendant is found Not Guilty, the proceedings against them are over. This means that following a Not Guilty verdict bail no longer applies to them. They are free to leave unconditionally.

There may be other applications to make when a defdendant is found Not Guilty, such as an application by the defence for costs of representation.

Hung Jury - What happens when the jury cannot agree on a verdict?
If a jury have had a majority direction but are still unable to reach a verdict, they will often send a note to the judge to the effect that they have reached the end of the line.

In such a situation, if the judge feels there is nothing to be gained by continuing, the jury will be discharged. A judge is unable to force the jury to return a verdict.

If a jury cannot agree on a verdict, either unanimously or by a permissible majority, the whole jury will be discharged.

A jury who are unable to agree on a verdict are known as a hung jury. It is often quite obvious when a jury cannot reach a verdict, not only from the time it is taking to hear from them but also from their body language when they are asked to return to the courtroom.

Crown Court Trial Part 6 - Verdict — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

 

[Dotta]

Thank you, every day is a school day

My sentiment exactly! I found so much interesting information here, also new English words - but I guess I wouldn't drop them in my small talk conversational English.

 

[tigerowl]

@Dotta has there been any reporting in Poland yet now the trial is nearly at an end? I know you mentioned before that there was nothing but wondered if that has changed now there is more info in the public domain?

 

[JosieJo]

No sorry this is not all we need to know. We can definitely discuss the findings and their expert testimony. And just to add(not directed to you!) That I think from my experience in an academic capacity the choice of specific words and phrases is very important. They are very careful what adverbs and adjectives they are using to discuss probabilities.

The judges directions are very important...its her job to take the evidence and condense it and direct the jurors on the important parts ...why would she specifically from all the pathologist report highlight this if there was more to be gleened from it

Sorry but I strongly disagree.. there are lots of pieces of evidence in the trial you can use to take inferences from ....the pathologist expert opinion isn't one of them ...hence the the judges direction on his evidence

Once you start taking inferences from this type of evidence you are stepping into the realms of bias unfortunately

 

[elliefant]

Are they allowed to return a verdict on one charge (eg guilty of rape) and be a hung jury on the murder/manslaughter? If so, does the guilty rape conviction hold fast and any retrial is only for murder/manslaughter?
Or is it all or nothing in terms of returning a verdict?