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

[Newthoughts]

You have mentioned twice that 700m is not far for PR to carry a body. But you also say it is far if Libby is walking it?

Libby is drunk and hypothermic. PR isn't. There is a huge difference.

 

[Cherwell]

Yes, unlikely to have been today. It is not a clean cut case to reach a fast, unanimous verdict on. There IS doubt. Both prosecution and defence have strong cases.

I agree, except I'd say that neither prosecution nor defence has a strong case.
A very difficult case to decide and I'm surprised anyone was expecting a quick verdict.

 

[mrjitty]

I want to reply to this MrJ but I have headache and have taken codeine so cannot think straight enough to phrase it correctly .

Will come back to it later if I remember though!

As always appreciate your input it always makes me think things from a different perspective.

It is a long time since I studied this stuff, but IIRC one reason for this law reform in the UK was to stop the accused learning all about the defence case then retrofitting his defence to match - alibi being an obvious example. So right to silence is still king but you can't then rely on things you reasonably ought to have told the police about in your interview.

I haven't looked at the case law to apply it to Libby's case but it does seem odd he can no comment critical questions about sex and what happened to libby in his interviews, but then at trial, say "oh yeah we had consensual sex right over here by the shed just perfectly for my case"

IMO that is the kind of area where an adverse inference should be able to come into play - i.e. he can't just retrofit his actions around the evidence when he could reasonably have told police that in the first place.

 

[tigerowl]

Libby is drunk and hypothermic. PR isn't. There is a huge difference.

But you don't consider him to be hampered in anyway by either a struggling or dead body?

 

[Lyall0814]

I agree, except I'd say that neither prosecution nor defence has a strong case.
A very difficult case to decide and I'm surprised anyone was expecting a quick verdict.

Or eleven are agreed and one not. Often it doesn't take long once they've been told a majority verdict is Ok

 

[Cherwell]

Or eleven are agreed and one not. Often it doesn't take long once they've been told a majority verdict is Ok

I could see it being more evenly divided than that.
I can believe that they'd all want to see him locked up for life, but it comes down to how conscientious they all are about the principles of the law.

 

[Newthoughts]

But you don't consider him to be hampered in anyway by either a struggling or dead body?

A 14 stone fit young man - nope.

 

[Newthoughts]

It is a long time since I studied this stuff, but IIRC one reason for this law reform in the UK was to stop the accused learning all about the defence case then retrofitting his defence to match - alibi being an obvious example. So right to silence is still king but you can't then rely on things you reasonably ought to have told the police about in your interview.

I haven't looked at the case law to apply it to Libby's case but it does seem odd he can no comment critical questions about sex and what happened to libby in his interviews, but then at trial, say "oh yeah we had consensual sex right over here by the shed just perfectly for my case"

IMO that is the kind of area where an adverse inference should be able to come into play - i.e. he can't just retrofit his actions around the evidence when he could reasonably have told police that in the first place.

That's quite clear and logical but it doesn't appear to have happened.

 

[ChiCubs2016]

Similar to how the park is brightly illuminated by the snow for PR yet dark and scary for LS.

IMHO, standing on Oak Road where the car was parked I am not sure Libby would have been able to see how brightly illuminated the park was. In looking at google maps I see there is a lot of foliage that would obstruct her view. Not to mention she was impaired. PR visited earlier so he may have known what the park looked like. I would attached google maps but I think we have all seen the area where PR and CCTV shows he parked a million times. MOO

 

[Lyall0814]

I could see it being more evenly divided than that.
I can believe that they'd all want to see him locked up for life, but it comes down to how conscientious they all are about the principles of the law.

That's true. I remember law students being adamant you couldn't find Huntley guilty of murder. Eleven did of course. But it was a few days before they were told a majority was Ok iirc.

 

[JusticeDT]

Usually people who attempt suicide don't do it on impulse.
Normally, a suicide victim would engage in planning the act, most go to great research in order to follow through on the chosen act.
There can be weeks or months of preoccupied, morbid thoughts about suicide and although the planning and intent is usually a closely guarded secret, there are usually 'clues' picked up by loved ones who are close to the depressed individual. Especially if a close relationship is involved.
Libby had just gone back to Uni from home.
Her Mum said they were very close, and I'm sure her Mum would have picked up on any nuances in her mood, but said she was happy.
There was no evidence that Libby had researched suicide recently online or anywhere else.

I think it's the way the defense seized on the 'throwing myself in the river' that struck a cord.
This was obviously done on purpose to 'register' prominently in the Jury's minds as I'm sure in the past that Libby may have discussed other ways of suicide too. But the defence chose that one method.

I think it's highly unlikely that Libby put herself in the river.
This comes from my own experience in those matters, professionally and personally and having friends and family who have taken their own lives.

JMO

Really great post

 

[NorthernSoul]

That's true. I remember law students being adamant you couldn't find Huntley guilty of murder. Eleven did of course. But it was a few days before they were told a majority was Ok iirc.

There can be such a variety of people on a jury as well, as there should be. Some very confident and used to speaking at meetings and so on, others very reserved, some very fixed in their views and others wanting to discuss every option. Some find the responsibility enjoyable in a way while for others it is an ordeal. It only takes one who is adamant in their view and for this to be the opposite view to the rest of the jurors for it all to take a very long time...

 

[Tortoise]

It is a long time since I studied this stuff, but IIRC one reason for this law reform in the UK was to stop the accused learning all about the defence case then retrofitting his defence to match - alibi being an obvious example. So right to silence is still king but you can't then rely on things you reasonably ought to have told the police about in your interview.

I haven't looked at the case law to apply it to Libby's case but it does seem odd he can no comment critical questions about sex and what happened to libby in his interviews, but then at trial, say "oh yeah we had consensual sex right over here by the shed just perfectly for my case"

IMO that is the kind of area where an adverse inference should be able to come into play - i.e. he can't just retrofit his actions around the evidence when he could reasonably have told police that in the first place.

I'm not sure what you mean by adverse inference though.

Do you mean evidence of sex should be withheld from him, so that he goes blind into court to give his version? Or he is prevented from changing his version?

Because as far as I know he is cautioned "it may harm your defence if you fail to mention.." and it does harm his defence, going into court and expecting the jury to believe him if his stated reason for giving a no comment interview makes no sense to them.

 

[ChiCubs2016]

Also IMHO, if I had just been raped right there at the green shed I may have ran right to that house where we believe SA lives and asked for help. Or to the houses right at Beresford Road and Claremont Ave. It looks like there are street lamps so I imagine one could find their way. If I had casual consensual sex I would have wandered down the road, not into the park. MOO

 

[tigerowl]

Also IMHO, if I had just been raped right there at the green shed I may have ran right to that house where we believe SA lives and asked for help. Or to the houses right at Beresford Road and Claremont Ave. It looks like there are street lamps so I imagine one could find their way. If I had casual consensual sex I would have wandered down the road, not into the park. MOO

I think we would all do this if we were thinking rationally. The point is, it is highly unlikely Libby was thinking rationally. We already know she is drunk, upset, has wondered around and refused help and has now just been further severely traumatised by a rape. I find it really difficult to understand why so many people just dismiss Libby's previous manner that night and suddenly think she would do what any sober, rational person would do in a crisis.

 

[Newthoughts]

I think we would all do this if we were thinking rationally. The point is, it is highly unlikely Libby was thinking rationally. We already know she is drunk, upset, has wondered around and refused help and has now just been further severely traumatised by a rape. I find it really difficult to understand why so many people just dismiss Libby's previous manner that night and suddenly think she would do what any sober, rational person would do in a crisis.

I think it's because that's what anyone would do in a crisis regardless of how drunk they were.


Most witnesses said she expressed a wish to go home which is rational. She just couldn't get them to understand where. Apart from the one struggling with English who understands her perfectly.

She was scared of the dark.

 

[Mommysleuth11]

I think we would all do this if we were thinking rationally. The point is, it is highly unlikely Libby was thinking rationally. We already know she is drunk, upset, has wondered around and refused help and has now just been further severely traumatised by a rape. I find it really difficult to understand why so many people just dismiss Libby's previous manner that night and suddenly think she would do what any sober, rational person would do in a crisis.

Yup, I have ashamedly been in some terrible drunken States when I was much younger. I made decisions that I was a) not aware of making and b) when the fog finally lifted (this could be days/weeks/months later) even i questioned, what the hell made me do that, what WAS I thinking?
Absolutely no logic or rationality to some of the plain stupid things I have done and damn right dangerous situations I have put myself in.

I'm not saying this at all relates to Libby, just that its almost impossible for any of us to guess what her decision making MAY have been.

 

[ChiCubs2016]

I think we would all do this if we were thinking rationally. The point is, it is highly unlikely Libby was thinking rationally. We already know she is drunk, upset, has wondered around and refused help and has now just been further severely traumatised by a rape. I find it really difficult to understand why so many people just dismiss Libby's previous manner that night and suddenly think she would do what any sober, rational person would do in a crisis.

I am not dismissing her behavior. I am saying In My Opinion I do not see her going into what appears to be a dark area when there were roads for her to walk on. We do not even know it Libby knew that was a park. But standing on the street there it looks like foliage and trees. You would not know what was behind it. But you could see a roadway and houses in the other direction.

 

[tigerowl]

I think it's because that's what anyone would do in a crisis regardless of how drunk they were.


Most witnesses said she expressed a wish to go home which is rational. She just couldn't get them to understand where. Apart from the one struggling with English who understands her perfectly.

She was scared of the dark.

Most witnesses also said she was shouting and screaming and became so aggressive that one of them had to leave her in the end.

I have said many times that I hold PR responsible for Libby coming to her death but how that happened is completely debatable using ALL of the information put before us.

 

[Steve2021]

I don't think we got to really hear much of what the defence said, the Judge did nod to it. Along the lines of he disputes due to geography and distance but again its not a discussion that was seemingly reported.

I'm not sure, what the time was spent doing we have no information on that. I'm not saying it doesn't seem sketchy either way (timings wise). I also don't automatically believe PR, much of what he said is clearly lies so I disregard what he said and his evidence completely. Perhaps they did enter ORPF for him to rape her?
My understanding is i don't have to believe PRs testimony because he doesn't have to prove anything, its on the prosecution to do so, so even completely disregarding anything he has said and thinking it give us no further info as to events that night that doesn't mean I have to think he's guilty? There COULD be many reasons that he lied. I absolutely accept one of those reasons been that he is indeed guilty. I don't know, I just don't think its proven, for me personally. Hopefully the jury have seen enough to think otherwise.

For me I have to look at everything. I agree that I don't have your issues with timing because 700 metres is not far and I've seen young lads carrying their girlfriends.

And we both have to agree that our issues with timing are not universally accepted by locals.

But I feel like you that I have to consider all the evidence and for me I have to consider any doubts either way.

If I consider him being not guilty then the only starting point I have is what he said. Which leaves him outside the park for a period of time. Without any suspicious noises from that area.

So I therefore I personally have to come up with something to explain that time. And I really can't. I think that's quite important cos it's a big chunk of time and if he's not guilty it has to be explained IMO. For Libby's sake.


So the alternative is that he is lying about not entering the park.

So if he is lying about that I feel I have to consider why he'd do that. Especially as it's something that increases the chances of Libby falling in herself. That would be enough for me to to say I now have a doubt about his guilt. I don't think Libby can make it to the river from outside the park without succumbing to hypothermia on the way. So inside would introduce doubt.

So I have to ask myself why lie about that? There is no reason to rape her outside the park.

The only explanation I can reach for that lie is he killed her and put her in the water. I cannot reach any other logical reason to lie.

But again that is in conjunction with every other piece of evidence.

But I think it is important to reasonably account for that time if he's not killed Libby

The debate between @Mommysleuth11 and @Newthoughts to me raises an interesting legal point. As the overriding task is to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt i imagine as a matter of law the interpretation of the former is correct, that the jury can consider a scenario that would be favourable to the defendant even if it's pure speculation on their part, and not only has no evidence to support it been adduced but the evidence from the defendant specifically excludes for it. In practice however I suspect some will prefer to follow the logic of @Newthoughts


The problem with telling one lie after another is that at some point members of the jury may think to themselves, I wasn't born yesterday, not only I don't believe you but if you're telling me one thing the truth is bound to be other.