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

[Corneileus]

It's only accessible by foot?

yes

 

[LucyRocket]

I was just rethinking that and I have saved something for later on.

Ahhh come on, that's teasing!

 

[Offaly]

i


im gonna show you the houses and the full trail to where pawel claims to have parked up...take me a bit to post all the pics

Thank you.

 

[Corneileus]

ok note the lamp post in this one...grass verge, lampost, lit up area, but the light does end there.

 

[Mommysleuth11]

It boils down to this.

Libby was found in the River Humber 7 weeks or so after the last time she was seen. The last time she was seen was entering or somewhere around the entrance to Oak Road playing fields i.e she was never seen walking back out onto any of the nearby streets or main roads. There is no evidence at all, and there would be, in any direction aside the river, that she ever came out of that area of Oak Road. She either therefore went into the River Hull that night or alternatively left the area somehow hidden, avoided all police/public searches etc and found her way into the river at a later stage, unseen, at any time, by anyone of 300,000+ people or any other camera anywhere in the city. Of which there are numerous.

Mr Relowicz's own testimony was that he last her saw her behind his car, she was screaming for him not to leave. We can deduce, according to him, lit area, pavement , turned around before the end etc etc , he was parked at the bottom end of Beresford Avenue in the close vicinity of Oak Road facing back in the direction of Beverley Road.

There are then only 3 options. 2 possibles according to Mr Relowicz and 1 other. According to Mr Relowicz's testimony it can only be one of two.

1) She must have, for reasons unknown, stopped following Mr Relowicz, or walking in the direction of where she lived where had spent the last couple of hours, the area she knew her friends would be returning to, immediately turned around , coincidentally, or maybe showing sober foresight, just in time to avoid any CCTV cameras (that had shown them arriving), and entered the dark, closed, empty park , cold ,upset and alone and then decided, reasons unknown to anyone who knew her, to put herself in the River Hull. A massive and short timed transformation from her alleged time with Mr Relowicz with whom he states she had been intimate and affectionate . She of course had any opportunity to go to the river between leaving the Welly and this time if this was in her mind.. Despite her drunken state it can be seen from all the evidence that she never left the area in the reasonably immediate vicinity of her address or the local shops/main junctions until Mr Relowicz moderately forced/persuaded her to get into his vehicle. Her mother has testified she was scared of/had an aversion to water. There is no history of harming herself in this manner etc. There is no immediately known reason for her to do this even allowing for her previous issues years hence. There has been testimony to her happiness, doing well at Uni, long term boyfriend whom she had contacted shortly before with no issues etc etc etc She had a happy night until her refusal from the Welly and was exhibiting behaviour that can be seen, in more normal times, on any busy night or weekend when people get drunk. Evidence has been put forward that Libby enjoyed socialising and likely had been drunk before but had never gone near water that we know of. She had lost her keys , had no phone and could therefore no longer contact anyone. This could be a reason for her distress , coupled with the cold night and excess drink. Her maintenance of her position in the general area of her house and mainly on the side of the road that vehicles coming from Welly would arrive perhaps suggest she was waiting for her friends to return and was anxious for them to do so. There is nothing to suggest any suicidal tendencies...she could easily have ran into the road or in front of a bus. CCTV in fact shows her deftly getting out of the way of traffic despite her obvious intoxication.

Mr Relowicz, and others, have confirmed she in fact wanted to go home or see her mum. Mr Relowicz says he was concerned when originally picking her up but felt unable to drop her outside a police station or hospital even (where few questions would be asked) for reasons only known to him.

The next best thing Mr Relowicz thought then, was to drive to a dead end road and a dark, empty , secluded park at gone midnight. A park he had visited a few hours hence and knew well. A park he knew was dark, empty and secluded.

Is this an obvious move or normal behaviour when "concerned" for someone's welfare? Would this help the person in anyway? Particularly a young, vulnerable as admited by Mr Relowicz, girl hardly dressed for a night in the cold, desolate park, who has stressed she in fact wants to go home or see her mum on numerous occasions. Mr Relowicz of course then advises that Libby went through a major transformation of sorts on that very short barely two minutes drive. She became, for reasons unknown, overwhelmingly attracted to him and instigates immediate outdoor sex, again we have no indication of any prior behaviour of this sort, again seems quite out of character. That Mr Relowicz's semen was the only one found tells its own story.

Of course Mr Relowicz admits to returning out of concern for her welfare 2 hours later. But for some reason it never occurs to him, for a second, that she would have continued the direction he says she was walking...following his car...., or to any of the nearby streets or back to where he found her or in the general area she had previously been...he drives straight to the park...and spends a few minutes there (but nowhere else) why did he so strongly believe, against his own prior sight and evidence, she would have abruptly about turned and gone into the park...of which he says they never entered, nor she asked to enter, when together?

2) After Mr Relowicz drove away Libby had the misfortune to run into someone else intent on doing her harm that night and they did whatever they did and put her into the River that night or again hid her away from everything/everybody until some other point they put her in.


The third possibility is that Mr Relowicz is lying.


I know where my money is.

To be fair you just done a pretty good summing up for the prosecution there but with respect its not completely impartial to the facts.

The court did hear that at some point Libby had expressed an idea of suicide by drowning in a river?

The affection (apparently) shown to PR wasn't completely out of character for her that night, according to another witness she was asking them to lie down with her and hug her and became verbally abusive when they refused.
Her behaviour or thoughts on that night cannot really be logically explained because she quite clearly wasn't thinking straight in terms of logical rational behaviour, might she not have simply gone home initially when she had the chance if that was the case?

You are also missing out the option that perhaps she could have gone into the river accidentally (by misadventure) not intentionally or with suicidal tendencies, but indeed by her own hand/legs.

I'm predominantly playing the devils advocate position here, I do believe he was ultimately responsible but its only "fair" to put the facts together as they actually were presented.

 

[LucyRocket]

@Corneileus you've been very quiet, but clearly taking it all in! These images are great for me as a non-local, thank you!

 

[Corneileus]

Ahhh come on, that's teasing!

im gonna make sure ive got my facts right first! this stuff that happened with neighbours hearing a slamming gate sound and male voices perhaps near libbys residence??, i know i might get advised to catch up, im wondering if that came to a conclusion??

 

[Corneileus]

To be fair you just done a pretty good summing up for the prosecution there but with respect its not completely impartial to the facts.

The court did hear that at some point Linby had expressed an idea of suicide by drowning in a river?

The affection (apparently) shown to PR wasn't completely out of character for her that night, according to another witness she was asking them to lie down with her and hug her and became verbally abusive when they refused.
Her behaviour or thoughts on that night cannot really be logically explained because she quite clearly wasn't thinking straight in terms of logical rational behaviour, might she not have simply gone home initially when she had the chance if that was the case?

You are also missing out the option that perhaps she could have gone into the river accidentally (by misadventure) not intentionally or with suicidal tendencies, but indeed by her own hand/legs.

I'm predominantly playing the devils advocate position here, I do believe he was ultimately responsible but its only "fair" to put the facts together as they actually were presented.

very good post too! His lies wont have helped though, if he hasnt indeed killed her,.. say he left her unconscious and someone else killed her? its not impossible although very difficult to believe/fathom. His final return of four minutes may have been to look for any cameras, to see if he should expect to be traced. He wasnt looking for Libby, he managed to do it all in the timescale in the second visit? He was scoping for cameras??

 

[Cherwell]

im gonna make sure ive got my facts right first! this stuff that happened with neighbours hearing a slamming gate sound and male voices perhaps near libbys residence??, i know i might get advised to catch up, im wondering if that came to a conclusion??

That witness was I think in Heathcote Street. Don't remember hearing any more about that, but if it was irrelevant we wouldn't expect to.

 

[Mommysleuth11]

very good post too! His lies wont have helped though, if he hasnt indeed killed her,.. say he left her unconscious and someone else killed her? its not impossible although very difficult to believe/fathom. His final return of four minutes may have been to look for any cameras, to see if he should expect to be traced. He wasnt looking for Libby, he managed to do it all in the timescale in the second visit? He was scoping for cameras??

Absolutely agree, the lies will almost certainly be what clinches it for the Jury. He has done himself no favours by taking the stand, his jackanory is ridiculous IMO.

I just can't seem to make the timings stick.

 

[Corneileus]

the third visit back to the park screws him up, either way, truth or not. HE has to pay even if he didnt kill her...had sex with a bird crying her eyes out, yeah its possible she became affectionate in need herself but it does not look anything other than twisted for pawel..the third visit to the park, not taking her to the police station if he was concerned or phoning an ambulance or even knocking on a neighbouring house. Its against him all the way really.

 

[Offaly]

I think the of the 3 witness who reported hearing screams, one lived in the house on the park, The Lodge its known by, he gave evidence for the prosecution, and the other two live in the row of houses which are nearest backing on to the park, I believe they are due to be called by the defence

I feel sorry for the scream witnesses - I think they are going to play a very big part in the murder (put in river) charge. They must feel very unnerved and pressured knowing that what they say could possibly sway a jury member to convict of murder or not.

 

[Corneileus]

again grass verge

 

[phildav76]

Do we know if the only CCTV that captured the arrival and departure of PR's car only from the yeast factory or was there also one on Beresford Avenue (or maybe Claremont) too? Have we seen the footage from either of these?

Also as far as I can see the prosecution didn't present any evidence of PR being in the park like footprints or fingerprints. Or am I wrong?

 

[Corneileus]

im

@Corneileus you've been very quiet, but clearly taking it all in! These images are great for me as a non-local, thank you!

Ive gotta drink these beers aswell.

 

[JosieJo]

I'm now more torn than ever as neither the defence or the prosecution version seem reasonable in regards to how she ended up in the river due the distance shown in the photos along with the terrain and slopes etc

 

[Cherwell]

Do we know if the only CCTV that captured the arrival and departure of PR's car only from the yeast factory or was there also one on Beresford Avenue (or maybe Claremont) too? Have we seen the footage from either of these?

From what I can glean, there is CCTV from both the yeast factory and a house/houses on Claremont Ave. None of this has been made available to the public.

 

[Corneileus]

Absolutely agree, the lies will almost certainly be what clinches it for the Jury. He has done himself no favours by taking the stand, his jackanory is ridiculous IMO.

I just can't seem to make the timings stick.

i absolutely feel there is an issue with the timings unless he..killed her close to the entrance, fireman lifted her, jogged to the river and got back faster. Now i do note that the pic of pawel in the gym in the mail is significant for the prosecution case on the wider audience. Pawel looks reasonably slim in that photo but in the later photos hes a bit bigger having put on weight but hes at least into some fitness?? Ive done some training with marines, my brother was in for 5 years and some of those scenarios i was invited into involved running with a fairly heavy male on your shoulder. Pawell could of, if he was fuelled by urgency and adrenaline coarsing through his veins make the run with her on his shoulder and get back really fast including putting her in the river. However libby was not dead, she had passed out and regained herself a little by the time pawel got close to the river hence when the screaming started.

Once when i was getting chased on foot by the police in the 90s i overtook my mate who was a fit football player, back then i was 15 years old and 14 stone and no good at fast running but honestly i smashed it and could never do the same again for years after that. i seemed to able to run as fast as i wanted.

 

[Vera_dci]

Sorry you are wrong when you say she became aggressive when he refused a hug. I think she became abusive when she went to the car and noticed the other gentleman. Maybe she felt threatened by two men rather than one. Or frustrated he coukdnt understand her IMO.

Darts witness :

He said: “I asked her to stand up but she was just mumbling, I couldn’t understand what she was saying.
“She asked me to lay down with her, I said, ‘No.’ I helped her to her feet, I had to grab her by her arms. Her legs weren’t working at first.”he then sat Libby on the wall behind the bus stop and asked her where she lived “so I could give her a lift home.”
“I asked at first if she had a phone so I could call someone to come and get her and she said her friends had it. I asked where they were and I couldn’t understand what she was saying.”
Mr Jacobs said as he went to ask Alan if he could understand her, Libby made her way over to the car.

He said: “I asked her where she lived and I couldn’t understand her. She went back to the wall.”

He says her demeanour changed and she started to swear at him and tell him to “*advertiser censored** off.”

To be fair you just done a pretty good summing up for the prosecution there but with respect its not completely impartial to the facts.

The court did hear that at some point Libby had expressed an idea of suicide by drowning in a river?

The affection (apparently) shown to PR wasn't completely out of character for her that night, according to another witness she was asking them to lie down with her and hug her and became verbally abusive when they refused.
Her behaviour or thoughts on that night cannot really be logically explained because she quite clearly wasn't thinking straight in terms of logical rational behaviour, might she not have simply gone home initially when she had the chance if that was the case?

You are also missing out the option that perhaps she could have gone into the river accidentally (by misadventure) not intentionally or with suicidal tendencies, but indeed by her own hand/legs.

I'm predominantly playing the devils advocate position here, I do believe he was ultimately responsible but its only "fair" to put the facts together as they actually were presented.

 

[Corneileus]

From what I can glean, there is CCTV from both the yeast factory and a house/houses on Claremont Ave. None of this has been made available to the public.

there could be hidden covert cameras every where in Hull, believe me its a very powerful city and Humberside Police do not muck about, which is why i can believe again why the cps may have it right to the affect of pawel did the girl harm, if he knows more and aint talking, hes getting slammed, if he doesnt know more but still aint talking hes getting slammed. Either way hes getting a heavy sentence even if his version is true!