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

[Winterbells]

Mr Wright says he suggests Relowicz is lying and why he said earlier he had sex with Libby while she had her underwear on.

Sorry, I've got myself very confused and didn't actually spot this bit. '...why he said earlier he had sex with Libby while she had her underwear on'. So somewhere in this cross examination, PR said Libby's underwear was on whilst the 'sex' took place. I didn't realise this. That's why I've been banging on about Libby putting them back on etc. Just ignore the nonsense I've posted on this matter. Need a lie down, I think.

 

[HullGirl72]

I believe they are referring to underpants.

In the UK knickers/pants are underpants
They’re only called underpants for men

 

[astheworldfallsdown]

Im querying this too. According to the lifeboat crew that fished her out she was wearing a black sports bra a skirt and trainers so why has the prosecution said she was wearing pants...im soooo confused now. Is this a reporting mistake or what?????

I think her pants wouldn't have been visible to the lifeboat crew.

 

[Newthoughts]

Im querying this too. According to the lifeboat crew that fished her out she was wearing a black sports bra a skirt and trainers so why has the prosecution said she was wearing pants...im soooo confused now. Is this a reporting mistake or what?????

That could be just what they saw. I'd guess they did the bare minimum to retrieve her and keep her safe for the PM. We've not heard everything so her clothing may have come up during the pathologists evidence but didn't get reported

 

[HullGirl72]

it is very dangerous and thick mud which obe can not escape without assistance...if the tide was very low that is. otherwise very strong chance u can not survive a fall in...a few people have, but not many.

Can you post a pic of the two bridges just to show how big they are so people can get a sense of the scale?
Please

 

[Winterbells]

He has now admitted she didn't take them off though

Yep, sorry, I completely missed that crucial detail.

 

[JusticeDT]

Yep, sorry, I completely missed that crucial detail.

It's hard to keep up with the different stories him having to change it so regularly and all

 

[Corneileus]

cornelius, I grew up next to Sutton Bridge but I’ve not lived in Hull for twenty years. I don’t think people realise just how big the river is at that point looking at the photos. If you stand on Sutton Bridge and then Stoneferry bridge and the river at ORPFs is between them you’d understand just how large and fast this river is right?!
(I never even knew ORPFs existed and I lived there till I was fifteen often returning to visit local family)
It’s not coming across on the photos just how frightening this river is

it is very dangerous and thick mud which obe can not escape without assistance...if the tide was very low that is. otherwise very strong chance u can not survive a fall in...a few people have, but not many.

Got him

got him for rape...is it enough to sway the jury for murder.

 

[JosieJo]

Thanks for the updates as ever @jamjim

I think the prosecution did a really good job...a whole day plus yesterday's on just cross examination...I think it was very long because they had to drum into the jurors the lies and past convictions because without them there may well be doubt.
I think its also good that they ended (i think) before defence had chance to requestion him as the jury will have now till Friday with his testimony in their heads.
I'm still of a mind they have more than enough evidence to go guilty of rape but not murder...but I think now without a doubt he will get guilty of murder because of the time and detail put into cross examination

 

[JusticeDT]

it is very dangerous and thick mud which obe can not escape without assistance...if the tide was very low that is. otherwise very strong chance u can not survive a fall in...a few people have, but not many.

got him for rape...is it enough to sway the jury for murder.

Million dollar question. In my opinion yes.

 

[Skigh]

I think her pants wouldn't have been visible to the lifeboat crew.

Could be the police wanted this to be kept out of the press.

 

[Offaly]

worth considering that the timescales could be inaccurate but actually stated as shorter than the timescale really was. presuming most thought of this possible factor..what if he was there longer, a minute or two?

The timing 12.11 to 12.19 - maybe it had just turned 12.11 and he left at a second before 12.20 - that wud give him almost 8 minutes.
Also timeframes do sometimes look unlikely but if you think about it - Libby was left by the two helping men at 11.50 and abducted by 12.08 (approx) - so in those twenty mins she was spotted by a potential rapist/murderer, stalked up and down the road by him, went into the endsleigh centre, spoken to him, waited til coast was clear (scenic), been forced/talked into his car and driven away. I mean if there had been no CCTV, we would be saying that timeframe for all that to happen is very tight and improbable, but it did happen. Just as it is possible for everything to happen in that 7/8 minute timeframe during visit two to oak road.

 

[mrazda71]

I think her pants wouldn't have been visible to the lifeboat crew.

Yes and they certainly wouldn't have purposefully looked for them. Some men are respectful

 

[HullGirl72]

Could be the police wanted this to be kept out of the press.

Throughout this thread everyone speculated what we thought happened with the few bits of knowledge we had been given
But we were all shocked at what the police actually knew
I think we are making the same mistake again and not realising what they know and not trusting they have enough to go on

 

[CoverMeCagney]

The timing 12.11 to 12.19 - maybe it had just turned 12.11 and he left at a second before 12.20 - that wud give him almost 8 minutes.

That could potentially be almost 9 minutes!
I've had the same thought. A few seconds either end could almost make 7 minutes become 9.

 

[Corneileus]

timescales not been brought uo in the coyrts in any great detail unless ive missed something. watching Ted Bundys last inyerview with Dr Dobson. "it happened in stages gradually, not over night etc etc like other kinds of addiction i would keep looking for more potent etc etc harder harder forms for a greater sense of excitement until the *advertiser censored* only goes so far" ....

 

[Corneileus]

Throughout this thread everyone speculated what we thought happened with the few bits of knowledge we had been given
But we were all shocked at what the police actually knew
I think we are making the same mistake again and not realising what they know and not trusting they have enough to go on

i hope this is true.

 

[HullGirl72]

i hope this is true.

It’s absolutely true
They don’t release anything like all the details before the trial as we keep finding out now

 

[JosieJo]

That could potentially be almost 9 minutes!
I've had the same thought. A few seconds either end could almost make 7 minutes become 9.

I'm not 100% sure but I remember reading 7.5 minutes mention in court and I think it was the prosecution who said it ?

 

[JosieJo]

timescales not been brought uo in the coyrts in any great detail unless ive missed something. watching Ted Bundys last inyerview with Dr Dobson. "it happened in stages gradually, not over night etc etc like other kinds of addiction i would keep looking for more potent etc etc harder harder forms for a greater sense of excitement until the *advertiser censored* only goes so far" ....

I think the defence may well bring it up still