UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 *ARREST* #19

[Niner]

Thursday, January 21st:
*Trial continues (Day 5) (@ 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.
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 eight & a half years.
Trial Day 1-4 (12/1 - 20/1/21) reference post #395 here:
UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 *ARREST* #19
Jan. 20th Wednesday, Trial Day 4: Relowicz is in the dock, the judge is sitting & the jury has been called up. To hear again from former Detective Constable Claire Jackson who will outline what was said during Relowicz’s police interviews. Jury was shown 2 photographs from drone footage of Oak Road (#420) here:
UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 *ARREST* #19
Relowicz describes the moment he first spoke to Libby; DC Jackson is playing the part of Relowicz & Richard Woolfall QC the part of the interviewing officer. (#422, #426, #428, #431, #435) here:
UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 *ARREST* #19
Relowicz insists he was telling the truth (#441, #443); Relowicz claims facial injury was due to playing with his son (#459) here:
UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 *ARREST* #19
Relowicz never told anyone about meeting Libby (#461, #466); Halloween masks in Relowicz's car boot & other items (#469, #472); Relowicz insisted he had no part in Libby's disappearance (#474); In an interview the following day Relowicz reiterated his innocence (#476); Relowicz refused to say why he kept quiet about other car boot items (#479) here:
UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 *ARREST* #19
Relowicz denies any intention to commit a sexual offence (#481); Relowicz questioned further on car boot sex toys & knickers (#488, #490) here:
UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 *ARREST* #19
Relowicz asked about account he gave to friends; Relowicz was asked in his police interview about an account he gave to Rafal Mrowczynski & was asked about another friend Darius Chrostek who he saw on Feb. 1 (#532); Relowicz asked why he never heard screams (#535 & #537); Relowicz denies taking Libby to 'isolated' spot (#536) here:
UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 *ARREST* #19
At the end of the first set of interviews Relowicz told police:“I would like you to find Libby safe and sound.” (#543); Darius Chrostek, a friend of Relowicz’s, will be asked about a conversation he had with Relowicz about what happened on January 31 (#553 & #554) here:
UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 *ARREST* #19
Darius Chrostek statement continues (#562); Rafal Mrowczynski told the court that, during a journey to work, Relowicz said he came across a girl in Haworth Street who was saying “she wanted her mum.” (#574, #576 & #580) here:
UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 *ARREST* #19
Brian Thornton, neighbor says he saw Relowicz cleaning his car on Feb. 1 (#581) here:
UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 *ARREST* #19
The trial has concluded for today. It will resume again at 10:30am on Thursday, 21/1/21.

 

[Newthoughts]

Sam Alford's witness statement - given early on - says he heard screams (backed up we now know by other witnesses). He then says few minutes afterwards he sees someone running out of the park with the river behind them. Time to put her in the river

The prosecution says you could run that distance in 1.5 minutes

The experts say that, whilst they cannot rule out death by drowning or hypothermia they didn't find obvious typical signs of it.

Therefore they believe she was dead or dying when she entered the water

They said the one thing they didn't rule out was asphyxiation because it was the one thing that wouldn't have been evident after all that time

PR went to the park earlier that evening. He clearly knew the park. He says in interview he took his son there which is the probably one of the few truths he told.

Libby was certainly disoriented when we saw footage. Every witness agrees. The path to the river isn't easy

PR is fit, highly sexually charged, probably full of adrenaline

He returns to the park at high tide.

Based on expert opinion I don't think the 7.5 minutes can be questioned that much. She was raped. She was in the river. Expert opinion says asphyxiation their favoured cause and expert opinion says they believe she was dead or dying when put in the water.

That is what we know and until expert opinion is challenged what experts conclude. So it must have happened within 7.5 minutes

 

[JosieJo]

It's a strange one about him testifying. I wonder if he might actually do it.

The defence must be going to say he left her alive at Oak Road but they must have something up their sleeve to go with the not guilty to rape stance when they know he denied sexual contact but they also know his DNA was found inside Libby. How are they going to spin that?

I agree the rape charge seems virtually impossible to contest with his background and the lack of ability to consent

 

[mrjitty]

I believe he said "no comment" to all questions about sexual contact, rather than denying it.

Yes I noticed this as well - and it's a fascinating reveal of the tensions back at the time of the interview

Clearly he has been advised by his lawyer not to deny the sexual aspect if evidence might later emerge to prove it - so instead he has no commented which helps him now. Unfortunately, between the lines it is quite revealing of his strategy - i.e hope the body doesn't turn up to prove it.

I think there is an emerging issue for the defence that the accused had prior knowledge that Libby was not going to turn up.

If his story were actually true, then for all he knows, Libby has hitchhiked off somewhere, and will re-emerge, or will turn up in a ditch. So why is he cleaning his car the morning after, and giving inconsistent versions to friends, even before libby is missing very long?

That's because he knows she won't be turning up.

 

[mrjitty]

I agree the rape charge seems virtually impossible to contest with his background and the lack of ability to consent

Technically he doesn't need to contest the rape - he just needs to claim from his perspective at the time, it wasn't a rape (even if technically it was) because then there is no motive for murder. A suggestion of a violent rape is what he has to fight, whereas vitiation of consent via alcohol would hardly drive someone to commit murder even if they were aware of the criminal conduct at the time.

 

[mrjitty]

I wonder if he will say that his denial of sexual contact was simply that he didn’t want his wife to find out he’d cheated after she came on to him. (Note that I think he is guilty of rape and murder from everything I have read).

I think they will try to argue that he was frightened that they would think he abducted Libby. The problem is - why would he not believe Libby would turn up sooner or later if he was not guilty? He knew there was a good chance she would never be found.

 

[mrjitty]

It's a strange one about him testifying. I wonder if he might actually do it.

The defence must be going to say he left her alive at Oak Road but they must have something up their sleeve to go with the not guilty to rape stance when they know he denied sexual contact but they also know his DNA was found inside Libby. How are they going to spin that?

I don't think he can testify - it will be a disaster.

 

[JosieJo]

Yes I noticed this as well - and it's a fascinating reveal of the tensions back at the time of the interview

Clearly he has been advised by his lawyer not to deny the sexual aspect if evidence might later emerge to prove it - so instead he has no commented which helps him now. Unfortunately, between the lines it is quite revealing of his strategy - i.e hope the body doesn't turn up to prove it.

I think there is an emerging issue for the defence that the accused had prior knowledge that Libby was not going to turn up.

If his story were actually true, then for all he knows, Libby has hitchhiked off somewhere, and will re-emerge, or will turn up in a ditch. So why is he cleaning his car the morning after, and giving inconsistent versions to friends, even before libby is missing very long?

That's because he knows she won't be turning up.

Might a defendant clean their car if they had raped someone? And give a version to friends if they had committed rape as a singular offence? Might a criminal do that in hope the victim may not report it as one example?

 

[Catsarse]

There’s some cctv on Hull Daily Mail online, showing him at 3.05am (Only 3 hours after Libby gets in his car)walking around Newland Ave (now in joggers, easier to masturbate in?)
By his police interviews he is very savvy about cameras, more so than the average person. He’ll know he’s on these cameras.

My mind boggles that in that sense, he’s so brazen. He goes back for a third visit to orpf (to collect something/hide Libby’s body/masturbate?) then goes home, changes and then goes back out for a walk. All the while knowing this will be caught on camera. No ounce of laying low. It’s hard to get my head around it.

It’s such a shame we’ll not hear from his wife. With two little ones at home, a wife and dog he certainly wasn’t playing family man during his nighttime and early hours.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes, in the evidence that's been heard so far. But we've not yet been through all five versions of his story. The opening remarks in court indicated that there's also a later version where he claims there was consensual sexual contact (presumably after he was confronted with the DNA evidence).

See this link for the five versions:
Libby Squire trial - the five versions of what happened that night

I agree, but that's not a denial, which was the scenario posed by the poster.

 

[mrjitty]

Might a defendant clean their car if they had raped someone? And give a version to friends if they had committed rape as a singular offence? Might a criminal do that in hope the victim may not report it as one example?

Possibly but the real issue is that because he lied about the rape, and has never be honest about what happened that night, why should we now believe that Libby just went and helpfully jumped in the river to cover up his crime?

 

[Tortoise]

Technically he doesn't need to contest the rape - he just needs to claim from his perspective at the time, it wasn't a rape (even if technically it was) because then there is no motive for murder. A suggestion of a violent rape is what he has to fight, whereas vitiation of consent via alcohol would hardly drive someone to commit murder even if they were aware of the criminal conduct at the time.

The scratches on his face should seal it.

 

[mrjitty]

The scratches on his face should seal it.

Agreed. That story to his friend sinks him IMO, because now we have a part of his version he should have disclosed to the police in questioning. I think the judge will direct the jury on that point.

 

[mrjitty]

I agree, but that's not a denial, which was the scenario posed by the poster.

Yes - specifically not a denial because of legal jeopardy.

This where I really like the English law reform on limiting right to silence. While I agree with right to silence overall, it does not make sense that the accused should be allowed to fail to mention key points that he intends to rely on at trial.

 

[mrjitty]

Maybe the defence will try to introduce some kind of "expert" who can muddy the waters about the time being too short. The risk of such evidence is it could get shot down

So I suspect the defence will just be mud slinging. I wonder if they will have any witnesses?

 

[JosieJo]

Possibly but the real issue is that because he lied about the rape, and has never be honest about what happened that night, why should we now believe that Libby just went and helpfully jumped in the river to cover up his crime?

Yes the lying makes a difference absolutely..
Just to add though ..I know it was just a light hearted comment but my personal opinion is that there is virtually zero chance she jumped into the river due to altered behaviour

 

[mrjitty]

Yes the lying makes a difference absolutely..
Just to add though ..I know it was just a light hearted comment but my personal opinion is that there is virtually zero chance she jumped into the river due to altered behaviour

Agreed

That's my problem with the defence case.

On the one hand, a sex predator took her to a location he staked out, took her in there in the freezing cold, raped her, people heard her screaming for some mins, then she is never heard of again until she turns up in the estuary

On the other hand, despite lying about all of the above, we are expected to believe she conveniently jumped in the river - based on no evidence

I think the defence needs to prove it more likely that he had no time to get her in the river if he is to get off. Otherwise, it seems clear what happened

 

[JusticeDT]

Maybe the defence will try to introduce some kind of "expert" who can muddy the waters about the time being too short. The risk of such evidence is it could get shot down

So I suspect the defence will just be mud slinging. I wonder if they will have any witnesses?

Apart from expert witnesses such ss medical, I can't think of a possible witness that could help him.

 

[Scorpiette]

I'm wondering about his use of a drone. Could he have used it to fly it around to check where CCTV cameras are? He seemed quite confident/cocky when he told the police to 'check the cameras'.
He had found a place in the park where the rape etc took place?

 

[HopeForGoodNews]

There’s some cctv on Hull Daily Mail online, showing him at 3.05am (Only 3 hours after Libby gets in his car)walking around Newland Ave (now in joggers, easier to masturbate in?)
By his police interviews he is very savvy about cameras, more so than the average person. He’ll know he’s on these cameras.

My mind boggles that in that sense, he’s so brazen. He goes back for a third visit to orpf (to collect something/hide Libby’s body/masturbate?) then goes home, changes and then goes back out for a walk. All the while knowing this will be caught on camera. No ounce of laying low. It’s hard to get my head around it.

It’s such a shame we’ll not hear from his wife. With two little ones at home, a wife and dog he certainly wasn’t playing family man during his nighttime and early hours.

I thought this footage was immediately after going back to Oak Road so means he went out in his joggers to look for Libby after his bath, not the same clothes he had been wearing as he told the police (someone correct me if Im wrong). Therefore if I'm right, this is just another lie hes told. A small thing but still lying

I've linked to the footage in case anyone has missed it:
CCTV of Pawel Relowicz's stroll in hours after alleged Libby murder