VERDICT WATCH UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, found deceased, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #24

[Sarahjo]

Question for the locals..

If you are in the park, before you go up the incline to the river, can you see the lights from the opposite bank or do you need to be at the top on the rivers edge to see them?

 

[NorthernSoul]

Do the jury have to “show their workings” to the judge as to how they arrived at their verdict?

No.

 

[Steve2021]

I had a stab at answering this upthread - but the short version is the jury, having identified all the facts that have been proven, needs to ask if it can be inferred that PR took some direct action to put Libby in the river

So they must not speculate away individual facts but if they can't be sure he did that because there are other reasonable possibilities, then it is not murder, even where the accused did not plead it. This is what the defence counsel/judge were getting at when they said that his lying does not inevitably mean he did the murder of itself.



This is why I was posting about adverse inferences from the Judge/Prosecution

Normally right to silence is absolute. Prosecution can't comment on it and the Judge will specifically warn the jury not to infer anything from no comment answers.

I did a bit more research on police interviews and this is apparently why the suspect assisted by counsel, will read in a prepared statement, and then no comment all the questions. It protects his right to silence later at trial, by commenting things that should be reasonably disclosed.

So hypothetical example - if PR's defence was that he was working as a taxi driver that night - that is something that should be read in - as to why he was in the area. So police can investigate - e.g app use etc - otherwise he can just ambush the prosecution with a fabricated version at trial.



This is a bugbear of mine and probably why I have way too many posts on it.

BARD standard merely reflects the overall burden of proof on the prosecution.

So in the present case, the jury should review all the circumstantial evidence and ask what can be inferred from it. So IMO, you can infer:

1. Libby was the person screaming in the park
2. PR was the man seen walking out of the park
3. PR raped Libby in the park
4. Libby ended up in the water directly because of the actions of PR
5. PR intended libby to go in the water
6. PR displayed guilty knowledge Libby wouldn't be turning up

= Murder

Only at this point do we ask, is there any other reasonable
possibility and this is where I hesitate a bit.

What tends to happen IMO, is that people tend to henpeck individual facts to BARD standard - that is not allowed. So we shouldn't speculate into existence a mysterious stranger who was "the real killer"

My 02c

Many thanks to @mrjitty for such a reasoned reply.

I think this highlights how a jury is meant to work through the process, and how a jury made up of 12 lawyers would, but that a jury of 12 lay members even though they are meant to do it this way very likely will not. Not necessarily because they wouldn't wish to but because they won't be able to understand it.

 

[Newthoughts]

You could say him arriving at oak road with LS was a coincidence, she may have directed him to beresford then stopped the I directions so the most logical thing would be to turn at the top of the road (he knew the area so knew he could do that) but the fact that he was at that exact spot merely hours before maybe stretches that coincidence a bit... I can’t remember how long he was there for on his first visit that evening, could it have been just to turn the car after cruising the street looking for a victim or was he there for some time?

Yes if that was the only piece of evidence. It's taking it in conjunction with everything else that makes it noteworthy.

For example you couldn't say it was Libby in spidercam if that was all you had. Add in witness statements placing her on Beverley Road. PR stalking her there and her watch being found

With the trip to the park you also have to consider the fact PR had visited earlier.

The drone footage

The fact English is not his first language yet he understood her where two native English speakers couldn't. The fact she hadn't a clue where she was. The fact he didn't specifically say she directed him there

Where she ends up.

One coincidence yes. Too many looks suspicious

Nothing on its own is sufficient. It has to be all the evidence

 

[tigerowl]

Question for the locals..

If you are in the park, before you go up the incline to the river, can you see the lights from the opposite bank or do you need to be at the top on the rivers edge to see them?

I think it's difficult to say, but probably not. What's probably more relevant is that you can't see the river at all from where she would have gone into ORPF. So if Libby had never been in the park before, and not having local bearings either, she would have had no idea that going forward through the park would lead her to the river.

 

[Sarahjo]

I think it's difficult to say, but probably not. What's probably more relevant is that you can't see the river at all from where she would have gone into ORPF. So if Libby had never been in the park before, and not having local bearings either, she would have had no idea that going forward through the park would lead her to the river.

Thanks, I was just thinking, if she did run into the park to get away from him and she hid for a while till he left would she have saw lights and went towards them, thinking it was maybe a main road, instead of going back the way she came..

 

[Cherwell]

The fact English is not his first language yet he understood her where two native English speakers couldn't.

Was this point made in court, I can't remember?

 

[mrjitty]

Many thanks to @mrjitty for such a reasoned reply.

I think this highlights how a jury is meant to work through the process, and how a jury made up of 12 lawyers would, but that a jury of 12 lay members even though they are meant to do it this way very likely will not. Not necessarily because they wouldn't wish to but because they won't be able to understand it.

At least in theory, on a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Judge should have directed the jury on how to approach it and the various stages. But things may have changed a lot since the days i used to read lots of cases!

 

[C.greek]

I think it's difficult to say, but probably not. What's probably more relevant is that you can't see the river at all from where she would have gone into ORPF. So if Libby had never been in the park before, and not having local bearings either, she would have had no idea that going forward through the park would lead her to the river.

Since this scenario was not put forward by the defence (ie the accidental falling into the river) is the jury able to explore this for reaching their verdict?

 

[Newthoughts]

Was this point made in court, I can't remember?

I can't remember if the prosecution made anything of it but he has said in court that his English is basic.

He's had two years in an English prison now so I suspect it's better now than it was.

 

[Dotta]

Since this scenario was not put forward by the defence (ie the accidental falling into the river) is the jury able to explore this for reaching their verdict?

But wasn't it mentioned by Defence as "misfortune"? - I don't remember clearly but understood this expression as indicating that Libby fell into the river by accident.

 

[bos]

Was this point made in court, I can't remember?

I haven’t seen any reports indicating that it was but that’s not to say that it didn’t occur!

 

[JosieJo]

These are still my thoughts at the moment..
The judge said not to use his lies and past convictions "alone" to make a decision ...

His lies and past convictions do not help in some ways because they could as easily relate to rape alone as they do rape and murder

Personally I do not think his lies and past convictions help with anything past rape ..many more people rape than do rape and kill so does not automatically follow he killed her and put her in the river to remove evidence

So now I'm looking to be sure he murdered her or committed manslaughter
I. keep trying to look for evidence to help me
Both versions from prosecution and defence have holes in them

The drone ...no use to me as its his nearest outside space and we don't know how often he used it there or what he filmed

The screams...could be due to rape alone

Him visiting oak rd 3rd time could be due to rape alone

Him being seen coming out of the park could be due to rape alone

No clear cause of death ..drowning, hypothermia and asphyxiation all possible..no help

I can't find any evidence to make me be sure he murdered her

I could be sure he raped her and put her somewhere in a position that led to her death ..I just can't be sure how

So manslaughter

 

[CoverMeCagney]

It's going to be very interesting to see the verdict! People have strong feelings on this - the jury have a very tough job!

Hopefully the jury have a few bits of extra information that we do not have, and it helps them to a solid verdict. The days after a verdict usually bring previously unheard facts. We shall see.

They also have less emotional attachment than we have, and we must factor that in. She is ‘just’ a case to them, but to us she is dear Libby.

 

[Sooty]

Since this scenario was not put forward by the defence (ie the accidental falling into the river) is the jury able to explore this for reaching their verdict?

In cross-examination by defence barrister Oliver Saxby QC asked Prof Deakin whether Libby could have come to harm accidentally as a result of her condition.

The expert confirmed Libby may have struggled to find her way home and could have run into difficulty.

Mr Saxby said: “May she have taken the wrong route or got lost? May she have been unaware of obvious danger?”

Professor Deakin said: “Her assessment of danger is likely to be impaired.”

Mr Saxby then asked: “May she be likely to have been disorientated in the dark?”

Professor Deakin said: “She may have been.”

Mr Saxby also asked: “You say she may have been vulnerable but would she may have also been very vulnerable to her own misadventure?”

Professor Deakin said: “She may have been, yes.”

Copied from HDM 22-01-21


I think the reports we had for the defence summing up omitted much about the misadventure scenario, but it was definitely presented to the court as a possible occurrence.

MOO

 

[Steve2021]

RSBM

I think this is my stumbling block with murder vs manslaughter.

I feel people are thinking manslaughter is applicable because they ‘hold PR responsible for leaving her’, in her vulnerable state. (Which is appalling, but doesn’t appear ?? to be a contributing factor in itself to the crime of manslaughter)

if one thinks murder can’t be proven because of lack of evidence that he killed her; manslaughter becomes equally problematic. IMOO

I think as a matter of law you're right. However as alluded to in my last post whether the jury will sufficiently understand this I'm not sure. They may well come in with a preconceived belief that this kind of scenario is exactly what manslaughter is for or should be for, and be unreceptive to being told it's not.

I've just thought, be prepared you all for this. It's coming if PR is found guilty of rape only. Hopefully Libby's family are.

In mitigation Mr Saxby steps up and tells the judge that it's not like this was a case of violent rape. As PR told the court earlier, Libby was all over him. He was conflicted. She was beautiful, naturally like any red bloodied male would he fancied her too, but he also thought of his wife and that he really shouldn't. But he did. He immediately wished he hadn't. Because of his wife. He had no reason to believe Libby was unable to consent. The jury have found as a matter of law otherwise but the fact remains Libby was more than happy at the time and was indeed only upset because he wouldn't stay for more. Not only is it a terrible misfortune for Libby and her family that Libby succumbed to a tragic accident, but PR has suffered terribly because if she hadn't died she wouldn't have dreamt of complaining she had been raped and he wouldn't have faced the terrible worry he's been put to through these proceedings. You just can't imagine as an innocent man how much worry he's had over potentially being convicted of her murder. It's ruined his life and he now needs medication for stress and depression. And anyway it's no different to like every night of the year young men and women meet at clubs and parties, usually worse for wear from drink, one thing leads to another and they end up in bed. Rarely is there any complaint afterwards. It's not that big a deal, it's modern life, just what young people do.

Thankfully the judge won't have been born yesterday and won't see it like that, but I bet he will have a go all the same.

 

[JosieJo]

What are peoples thoughts on what the position the jury are in

Struggling on all 3 counts?
Struggling between murder and manslaughter?
Struggling between guilt of causing her death at all and not guilty?

 

[Steve2021]

This is the conclusion I eventually reached, helped by a post by Steve2021 yesterday and so changed my opinion from manslaughter back to my original thought - not guilty. Not to say I believe he cannot be guilty but that I believe there is reasonable doubt.

Thinking about the Andrew Harper case is making me doubt myself as to what I've previously said. (But see the ps at the bottom showing I've now overcome those doubts) If I was on the jury I'd be asking the judge to explain manslaughter to me very clearly.

Unlawful act manslaughter is charged when death occurs due to a criminal act which a reasonable person would realise must subject some other person to at least the risk of some physical harm.

In the Andrew Harper case the defendants committed a crime, theft of the quad bike. Would one say stealing the bike must subject someone to the risk of harm, doubtful. Maybe it was other (quite possibly motoring offences) associated with their escape that the manslaughter was founded on. Anyone know?

PS I've had a quick look at the judgment in the Harper case appeal. Seems it was not the theft but the driving/agreement to drive in a dangerous manner in their escape that stuffed the defendants on manslaughter. So I've overcome the doubts on my original opinion.

 

[Sooty]

Thinking about the Andrew Harper case is making me doubt myself as to what I've previously said. If I was on the jury I'd be asking the judge to explain manslaughter to me very clearly.

Unlawful act manslaughter is charged when death occurs due to a criminal act which a reasonable person would realise must subject some other person to at least the risk of some physical harm.

In the Andrew Harper case the defendants committed a crime, theft of the quad bike. Would one say stealing the bike must subject someone to the risk of harm, doubtful. Maybe it was other (quite possibly motoring offences) associated with their escape that the manslaughter was founded on. Anyone know?

I did not follow this case closely, but I believe that the defendants actions directly caused PC Harper’s death. The manslaughter vs murder was based upon whether or not they intended to cause his death (were aware that they were causing his death)

 

[C.greek]

In cross-examination by defence barrister Oliver Saxby QC asked Prof Deakin whether Libby could have come to harm accidentally as a result of her condition.

The expert confirmed Libby may have struggled to find her way home and could have run into difficulty.

Mr Saxby said: “May she have taken the wrong route or got lost? May she have been unaware of obvious danger?”

Professor Deakin said: “Her assessment of danger is likely to be impaired.”

Mr Saxby then asked: “May she be likely to have been disorientated in the dark?”

Professor Deakin said: “She may have been.”

Mr Saxby also asked: “You say she may have been vulnerable but would she may have also been very vulnerable to her own misadventure?”

Professor Deakin said: “She may have been, yes.”

Copied from HDM 22-01-21


I think the reports we had for the defence summing up omitted much about the misadventure scenario, but it was definitely presented to the court as a possible occurrence.

MOO

Agreed. I think we have seen only snippets of what has been presented. Very difficult to put ourselves in the jury's shoes... i still believe from what we have heard that he is guilty of murder. But i do realise this is not so clean-cut...