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

[JosieJo]

has the jury then disregarded the judge's guidance? Or wasn't her guidance so clear?

I'd say subconciously disregarded it in an effort to try and strengthen their opinion...I can't think of any reason why they would try to look through the judges summary
In the long run its the jurys decision on what they take on board. Personally (imo anyway) trying to drag inference from an expert opinion is pointless...because any side of the fence could drag snippets from the post mortem and highlight them to suit ... the difficult part is realising that when you desperately want to justify your thoughts

 

[tigerowl]

Search in the search box top right hand side of this page.
Search 'Poll'
Then put Tortoise in the 'by member' section.

Thank you!!

 

[C.greek]

I'd say subconciously disregarded it in an effort to try and strengthen their opinion...I can't think of any reason why they would try to look through the judges summary
In the long run its the jurys decision on what they take on board. Personally (imo anyway) trying to drag inference from an expert opinion is pointless...because any side of the fence could drag snippets from the post mortem and highlight them to suit ... the difficult part is realising that when you desperately want to justify your thoughts

That's not entirely accurate. Dr L. Used different words to discuss probability (and I can definitely judge that because of my profession) and CPS were happy to charge him with rape and murder based on the autopsy and the other evidences. To dismiss this attempt of the jury (and I am not taking it personally) to get clarity for themselves as pointless would be pretty unfair and a bit arrogant I find.
ETA the only reason I can find based on what you have said- and I trust you know what you are talking about when discussing the judge's closing statement and guidance- is that her guidance was not clear.

 

[tedtink]

I'd say subconciously disregarded it in an effort to try and strengthen their opinion...I can't think of any reason why they would try to look through the judges summary
In the long run its the jurys decision on what they take on board. Personally (imo anyway) trying to drag inference from an expert opinion is pointless...because any side of the fence could drag snippets from the post mortem and highlight them to suit ... the difficult part is realising that when you desperately want to justify your thoughts

Well what you seem to have suggested here is akin to the Jury fitting up PR with the crime, putting their opinions first, then fitting the evidence around theory without consciously realising it.

I think we should give them more credit than that.

 

[HLC35]

I’ve talked at length with my husband about Libby’s case (I’m sure he thought I was going to move to Hull 2 years ago from the amount of streetview driving and satellite tenfoot searching I did), and, as a lawyer, he also thinks PR guilty of Libby’s murder and disposing of her, and that, as parents, neither of us would want jurors to agree to a lesser conviction if they didn’t believe it, if it meant our daughter would not be given justice, and peace. No matter how many retrials we would attend. Jmo.

 

[JosieJo]

That's not entirely accurate. Dr L. Used different words to discuss probability (and I can definitely judge that because of my profession) and CPS were happy to charge him with rape and murder based on the autopsy and the other evidences. To dismiss this attempt of the jury (and I am not taking it personally) to get clarity for themselves as pointless would be pretty unfair and a bit arrogant I find.
ETA the only reason I can find based on what you have said- and I trust you know what you are talking about when discussing the judge's closing statement and guidance- is that her guidance was not clear.

Why would her guidance not be clear ? She is extremely experienced and in her direction she clearly points out to the jury the post mortem was not much help and both drowning or asphyxiation were possible

Why would this be unclear? Its her job to pick out the important parts so that jury do not get sucked into inferences that both the prosecution and defence will try and push onto the jury

There's nothing arrogant about recognising it's natural to focus on information that suits your theory and disregarding that that doesn't...and can be difficult to try and not to

 

[JosieJo]

Well what you seem to have suggested here is akin to the Jury fitting up PR with the crime, putting their opinions first, then fitting the evidence around theory without consciously realising it.

I think we should give them more credit than that.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort ...I was merely pointing out the reasoning behind why the judge sums up and gives direction..

Nothing at all to do with fitting PR up as confirmation bias occurs equally whatever side of the fence we sit and is mostly subconscious

 

[kate2931]

At this point, I’m inclined to believe the jury are being thorough on points of law.
But I still have confidence that the judge will issue the longest possible sentence for PR (hurt to even use initials !) possible, as in his disgusting deviancy crimes

 

[Loobyloo]

Am I being daft here, is "table" a typo?

This point may have been made later (I'm catching up on the day's posts) but I don't think the pathologist was actually suggesting a table had caused the injury in Libby's case, just that it was the sort of injury typically seen when someone has fallen against a table.

 

[Loobyloo]

This point may have been made later (I'm catching up on the day's posts) but I don't think the pathologist was actually suggesting a table had caused the injury in Libby's case, just that it was the sort of injury typically seen when someone has fallen against a table.

Yes, I should've waited

 

[Loobyloo]

What I meant Defence hinted drowning as fluid/water was found in left lung - but the recap by the judge didn't mention it.

Indeed - today's summary says specifically ' the lungs did feel a bit crackly but they weren’t wet'. Looks like the original reporting about there being fluid in one of the lungs may have omitted a 'not' somewhere along the way!

(edited to correct link)

 

[Loobyloo]

<snip>

Jury to decide if Libby death was murder, manslaughter or tragedy

Is it just me, or is that Hull Live headline particularly inappropriate/insensitive? Surely Libby's death is just as much a tragedy if she died through murder or manslaughter. I'm guessing they mean 'misadventure', so why not say that?

 

[Loobyloo]

Search in the search box top right hand side of this page.
Search 'Poll'
Then put Tortoise in the 'by member' section.

I think this is the latest version:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/amended-poll-uk-libby-squire.558397/

I won't comment here on the voting, as I know that's only for members' eyes, but I think it's interesting how many have voted, compared with the number who typically post or 'like' posts.
*waves to the lurkers*

 

[Loobyloo]

I've been looking again at Dr Lyall's evidence (as reported by Hull Live from the Wednesday recap) & several details stuck out for me. I've put the key injuries in bold & the 'opinions' in italics.

He said that there was ingrained dirt and silt on the back of each hand and the lower part of the torso, the neck and upper parts of the chest was ingrained and he said this is just the sort of feature you may encounter on a body that has been exposed to this sort of material at the time
[...]
He went through the list quite quickly. He recorded in the upper side of the head an area of grazing. No injuries to the back of the skull to the left side of the face there were lots of small areas of grazes similar to what are seen on bodies removed from water.

"Abrasion on the forehead, the nose and the eyelids all consistent with movement of the body in water and he thought all probably happened after death.

"Superficial skin on the ears had been removed in places which could be the result of grazing in the water. Other abrasions all consistent with post-mortem passage of the body in water.​

It seems to me he's deliberately being cautious here, never saying that these abrasions must be caused by the body being bashed around in the river, only that they may be. That leaves open the possibility of them being caused by something else - let's say PR dragging the body across frozen ground & pushing it into the water...
Hopefully the jury will pick up on that possibility.

Right, I'm done for tonight. Thanks to @jamjim for the updates again today, & fingers crossed for a positive development on Thursday, even if it's only giving the jury the go-ahead for a majority verdict.

 

[LadyL]

checking in from Canada - followed Libby's case in the beginning
looking forward to justice for her and her family!

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

This post lands at random.

Today alone the Mods had to remove about 40 posts for various reasons, including snarky comments, off topic, victim blaming, personalizing, bickering, telling others how to post.

Also lengthy back and forth debating over a slight difference of opinion may be removed if Reported. It is not necessary to try to hammer your own opinion into someone else's head. You have your opinion, they have theirs. State your point/opinion and move on without belaboring it to death.

By way of explanation, if someone makes a post on Page 15 and it gets Reported, Mods have to start at Page 15 to remove that post and then review all subsequent pages up to the current Page 38/39/40 or whatever to remove all responses (and responses to responses). This is very time consuming and Moderators do not have time to respond to individual requests for explanations and they are not required to do so.

Excerpt from The Rules: Etiquette & Information

DELETING POSTS and CLOSING THREADS

WS Administration has the right to close any thread, and to delete any post, which we deem inappropriate. The decision to close a thread, or to delete or edit a post is solely ours. We adhere to a strict policy of striving to maintain interesting and productive discussions for the benefit of the WS community.

As such, threads that create an unnecessary amount of conflict, and serve no constructive purpose, may be closed at the discretion of the WS staff.

In addition, moderators will exercise their discretion to delete individual posts which are inappropriate, offensive, or otherwise violate TOS (including the rules and etiquette outlined above). While moderators are not required to provide a reason for post removal, they will try do so when time permits.

Be aware that if you quote a post which warrants removal, your post is subject to deletion, as well. If a post has been removed, do not refer to it or discuss it further on the thread.

It is up to all members to familiarize themselves with Websleuths TOS. Please just try to post in accordance with The Rules and your post won't get removed.

Thank you.

 

[Miss_French]

I've been looking again at Dr Lyall's evidence (as reported by Hull Live from the Wednesday recap) & several details stuck out for me. I've put the key injuries in bold & the 'opinions' in italics.

He said that there was ingrained dirt and silt on the back of each hand and the lower part of the torso, the neck and upper parts of the chest was ingrained and he said this is just the sort of feature you may encounter on a body that has been exposed to this sort of material at the time
[...]
He went through the list quite quickly. He recorded in the upper side of the head an area of grazing. No injuries to the back of the skull to the left side of the face there were lots of small areas of grazes similar to what are seen on bodies removed from water.

"Abrasion on the forehead, the nose and the eyelids all consistent with movement of the body in water and he thought all probably happened after death.

"Superficial skin on the ears had been removed in places which could be the result of grazing in the water. Other abrasions all consistent with post-mortem passage of the body in water.​

It seems to me he's deliberately being cautious here, never saying that these abrasions must be caused by the body being bashed around in the river, only that they may be. That leaves open the possibility of them being caused by something else - let's say PR dragging the body across frozen ground & pushing it into the water...
Hopefully the jury will pick up on that possibility.

Right, I'm done for tonight. Thanks to @jamjim for the updates again today, & fingers crossed for a positive development on Thursday, even if it's only giving the jury the go-ahead for a majority verdict.

But the upper part of the body is the heaviest, and it's easier dragging someone by holding them under their arms, not by their feet. And if you dragged someone face-first, it wouldn't be the backs of their hands that would trail on the ground, arms would naturally be palms down; he doesn't talk about abrasions on the hands with dirt in them, just dirt, that I imagine would show as overall discolouration. Also, the angle that you held them at, it would be difficult to get dirt ingrained in the neck and upper chest, and abrasions on one side, but damage to both ears.

 

[Newthoughts]

I think it's going to come back with no agreement of any kind (unanimous or majority) on the murder or manslaughter charges. I don't think the evidence is there for the level of certainty required.

If there's one thing I learned from jury service, with the choice we had of convicting one or two defendants on joint enterprise murder, it's the real burden of getting it right. It doesn't compare to the way we in the forum judge what evidence we hear about through court reporting, even if we think we're doing it as we would do if we had the juror's responsibility. The real responsibility kept me awake at night - which one did it and did the other one participate or was he just there? Life sentences in the offing for two young men.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the actual dilemma is not between murder and manslaughter, but between manslaughter, not proven (no verdict), and possibly not guilty.

How many have voted here for murder purely to keep a rapist off the streets for longer?

How many have voted for murder or manslaughter because Libby died and they want to see a punishment whether he had the intention for it or not?

I don't think either stance is reached by looking at the certainty of what he did that a jury is held to, so I don't think our opinions are necessarily a reflection of the jury split.

It is a massive responsibility and I think plenty of people here think he is not worthy of that consideration. If manslaughter is reached on the basis of different jury directions, ie intention is not a specific direction, then perhaps my prediction will prove to be wrong. Or I could just be wrong, full stop.

MOO

I voted for murder based on the evidence from start to finish. Not on one single piece. From his previous crimes, his intentions on going out thru to his later confidence and Libby's physical state. I looked at the options that best fit all that evidence and how that fitted the real world (e.g. how many rape victims fall in rivers). And by the fact I found no credible alternative explanation

Certainty is never achieved in the real world.

 

[Niner]

Thursday, February 11th:
*Trial continues (Day 19)-VERDICT WATCH! (Day 6) (@ 10:30am UK) – UK – Liberty “Libby” Anna Squire (21) (last seen Jan. 31, 2019 outside Welly Club in Hull; found Mar. 20, 2019 from Grimsby Docks in the Humber Estuary) - *Pawel P. Relowicz (24/now 25) arrested (Feb. 6, 2019 on suspicion of abduction) officially charged (Oct. 30, 2019) with murder & rape. No plea entered yet. Not guilty plea entered on Jan. 12, 2021.
Trial began on Jan. 12, 2021. Trial will be in Sheffield. Richard Wright QC will lead, Mr. Woolfall prosecutor. Oliver Saxby QC for defense. Trial expected to last 6 weeks. Jury: 5 men & 7 women. Day 1 (4/2/21) of deliberations: 2 hours. Day 2 (5/2/21) of deliberations: 5 ½ hours. Day 3 (8/2/21) of deliberations: 5 hours 15 mins. Day 4 (9/2/21) of deliberations: 5 hours & 50 mins. Day 5 (10/2/21) of deliberations: 4 hours 10 mins. Total deliberations: ~22 hours 45 mins. (Reporter has ~20 hours of deliberations).
Was originally charged (18/3/19 & 10/5/19) with 5 counts of burglary, 4 counts of voyeurism, 3 counts of outraging public decency & 1 count of receiving stolen goods. On Aug. 12, 2019 plead guilty to 9 charges including voyeurism (4 counts), outraging public decency (2 counts) & burglary (3 counts). Relowicz jailed for 8½ years.
Trial (Days 1-17) & Deliberation Days (1-4) (12/1/21 - 9/2/21) reference post #445 here:
VERDICT WATCH - UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, found deceased, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #25
Feb 10th Wednesday, Day 18 of Verdict Watch (Day 5): The jury being called back into court before members will once again begin deliberations for the fifth day & have retired to start deliberations at 10:35am.
@ about 1:05pm: The jury have asked to hear a summary of Dr. Lyall’s evidence. The judge will read that out at 2pm. Trial has adjourned for lunch @ 1:10pm.
@1:54pm: Justice Lambert has been spending lunch mulling over a query from the jury & is due to address them shortly.
@2:10pm: Judge reminding jury of pathologist's evidence see #602, 604, 611 & 615 here:
VERDICT WATCH - UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, found deceased, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #25
Justice Lambert is now reading a summary of Dr. Lyall’s evidence to the jury. (see above 611 & 615). Justice Lambert read out more of Dr. Lyall's evidence relating to a series of bruises in the lower part of the body but could not say if any of these were signs of non-consensual sex. No signs of natural death see #627, 632, 635 & 636 here:
VERDICT WATCH - UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, found deceased, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #25
@2:45pm: The jury have been sent out again to continue their deliberations.
@4:25pm: Justice Lambert has brought the jury back into court & has dismissed them for the day. They will return again tomorrow, 11/2/21 @ 10:30am.

 

[elliefant]

Dear Libby, I hope today will be your day and that from here on everything in your loved ones’ lives can be about you and not at all about this .