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

[Legally Bland]

Well It's just when I look at the poster's name in the thread I immediately know what side of the fence the post will be about. And... Surprise... I am never wrong

RSBM. The vast majority of posts on here are people have expressing their opinion whilst acknowledging doubts over their viewpoint. It's debate, not taking sides.

If you have a side that's up to you.

Re PR's drone, did we get a date for the footage then? The Mirror reports the prosecution as saying it was flown 'a couple of days earlier' but it was not 100% clear (to me) if this meant two days before Libby's disappearance or two days before PR's arrest.

'Frantic' screams heard as Libby Squire was 'taken to playing fields by stalker'

I don't see the need to use a drone to scope out the playing fields - he could easily explore them on foot or look at Google satellite view. But if the footage is from after the murder that might suggest he was checking for signs of Libby's body downstream. Not much seemed to be made of it at trial though, so guessing the footage wasn't that revealing?

11:13
Items seized from Relowicz's home
Mr Wright has told the jury that on February 7, forensic officers seized a drone from the Raglan Street property that showed footage taken of Oak Road playing fields on January 30, 2019.
UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 *ARREST* #19

 

[Newthoughts]

Absolutely he has multi-Paraphilias: exhibitionism;voyeurism;fetishism & the calling cards show a level of sadism(via psychological suffering).
My reason for mentioning the voyeurism thesis is has lived experience of offenders which illustrate cognitive distortion/dissonance

I agree, I found the cognitive dissonance in voyeurs interesting.

Anecdotally, which isn't evidence or scientific, I'd heard the same dissonance thing from two separate prison warders about sex offenders more generally.

They didn't know each other never met each other. Didn't even work in the same European countries. But both separately referred to sex offenders as masters of cognitive dissonance. Never ever their fault. Always someone elses fault. Crimes never serious. Both found them quite sickening - which given their jobs says a lot.

 

[Sooty]

My interpretation which could be wrong is that the manslaughter charge doesn't rest on leaving her in the park. I read it that there has to be actual harm inflicted on her body during the rape which contributed to her death. But I think the reporter made a bit of a hash of relaying the judge's directions on that part.

MOO

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

 

[HLC35]

I have a query on the charges if anyone can help me.
PR was originally arrested on suspicion of abduction.

obviously things developed from that original arrest and the current charges were added.

however, why hasn’t he been charged with kidnap/abduction in addition to rape and murder?

Because to me, it would indicate that the police now regard the act of him taking her to the park (disregarding any possible subsequent events) does not constitute any crime taking place, despite what we all might think about that particular event.

And if that indicates that there was no crime in taking her there, then would it follow that there is no crime (in itself) in leaving her there?


these are my genuine questions, if anyone with knowledge can help?


Edited in an attempt to provide clarity

He was arrested on suspicion of abduction at the start as the LE were still hoping Libby was alive somewhere. They did not know all that had happened to her after he was seen driving her away. As soon as they’d sadly found her body in March, the charge changed.

 

[Newthoughts]

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 agree totally.

The case that's been cited here was the PC Harper - but I believe that was judged as manslaughter because the jury believed the defendants when they said that they didn't know they were dragging him along. I got the impression that had the jury not believed that it would have been murder.

There isn't anything in this case that is similar.

 

[Sooty]

He was charged with abduction at the start as the LE were still hoping Libby was alive somewhere. They did not know all that had happened to her after he was seen driving her away. As soon as they’d sadly found her body in March, the charge changed.

Was he actually charged? I thought he was just arrested on suspicion and then released. My apologies if I have missed that information.

I am just wondering why he is not being trialled for kidnap, it is often an additional charge and has its own sentencing guidelines, as has attempted abduction etc. the fact that he has not been charged and trialled for this, suggests to me that the police feel that that there is no evidence at all to support the charge despite what we may think from our own musings.

MOO

 

[NorthernSoul]

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

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.

 

[Sooty]

It really is a very complex case!

And hard to be dispassionate.

like many of us have stated, it’s a tough call for the jury as a whole.

MOO

 

[Newthoughts]

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.

This is a genuine question but can I ask what is that reasonable doubt?

 

[Newthoughts]

Was he actually charged? I thought he was just arrested on suspicion and then released. My apologies if I have missed that information.

I am just wondering why he is not being trialled for kidnap, it is often an additional charge and has its own sentencing guidelines, as has attempted abduction etc. the fact that he has not been charged and trialled for this, suggests to me that the police feel that that there is no evidence at all to support the charge despite what we may think from our own musings.

MOO

I think it was abduction but I also think that would be impossible to prove. So I'm with you on that.

 

[bos]

I have a query on the charges if anyone can help me.
PR was originally arrested on suspicion of abduction.

obviously things developed from that original arrest and the current charges were added.

however, why hasn’t he been charged with kidnap/abduction in addition to rape and murder?

Because to me, it would indicate that the police now regard the act of him taking her to the park (disregarding any possible subsequent events) does not constitute any crime taking place, despite what we all might think about that particular event.

And if that indicates that there was no crime in taking her there, then would it follow that there is no crime (in itself) in leaving her there?


these are my genuine questions, if anyone with knowledge can help?


Edited in an attempt to provide clarity

I must admit that I don’t understand this either; I can only think it’s about the difficulty of proving that his intention at the start wasn’t to take her home

 

[HLC35]

Was he actually charged? I thought he was just arrested on suspicion and then released. My apologies if I have missed that information.

I am just wondering why he is not being trialled for kidnap, it is often an additional charge and has its own sentencing guidelines, as has attempted abduction etc. the fact that he has not been charged and trialled for this, suggests to me that the police feel that that there is no evidence at all to support the charge despite what we may think from our own musings.

MOO

Apologies, you’re quite right; I have corrected my original post to read ‘arrested for’ not charged.

 

[tigerowl]

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.

I feel the same. If I disassociate my feeling that he is responsible as he took her there in the first place, I am left with reasonable doubt that his actions once there caused her death.

 

[NorthernSoul]

This is a genuine question but can I ask what is that reasonable doubt?

For me it's basically that the scenarios put forward by other Websleuthers who might lean towards a guilty verdict are entirely credible and make many excellent points but I can also envisage the possibility of another scenario where PR did not murder Libby. I won't go into the other possibilities again because there have been many posts about them. Because of this and in the absence of further evidence I am unable to say I am sure beyond reasonable doubt that the scenario where PR killed Libby is the one and only logical conclusion.

 

[bos]

This is a genuine question but can I ask what is that reasonable doubt?

For me (and I believe he did it), for every scenario there is a likely and less likely option of what occurred and why. The problem is that the less likely scenarios are closer to possible than impossible.

Edited to add: so taking the evidence as a whole and adding up all the likely v unlikely, the likely has it i.e the balance of probabilities are in favour that he is responsible overcoming the niggle that another scenario is possible is harder

 

[Newthoughts]

For me it's basically that the scenarios put forward by other Websleuthers who might lean towards a guilty verdict are entirely credible and make many excellent points but I can also envisage the possibility of another scenario where PR did not murder Libby. I won't go into the other possibilities again because there have been many posts about them. Because of this and in the absence of further evidence I am unable to say I am sure beyond reasonable doubt that the scenario where PR killed Libby is the one and only logical conclusion.

Ah see I'm the opposite. On two fronts definitely plus supporting

I can't see any reasonable scenario given the circumstances where Libby can get into that river herself from outside the park. Therefore I can't see why PR and his defence avoid that in park option.

Added to which - the weight given to any reasonable scenario for Libby getting there from that point by the defence seems very light given its his biggest defence.

Then I can't reconcile PRs later behaviour and the content of his lies with anybody that thinks there is a risk she'd be found. And I think it's a high risk if he'd left her either on the road or in the park. @mrjitty seemed to describe it as knowledge of guilt or something like that .

Supporting is his lack of hesitation in getting there. His choice of a location with a river when there are other spaces and the fact he didn't rape her in the car

 

[NorthernSoul]

Ah see I'm the opposite. On two fronts definitely plus supporting

I can't see any reasonable scenario given the circumstances where Libby can get into that river herself from outside the park. Therefore I can't see why PR and his defence avoid that in park option.

Added to which - the weight given to any reasonable scenario for Libby getting there from that point by the defence seems very light given its his biggest defence.

Then I can't reconcile PRs later behaviour and the content of his lies with anybody that thinks there is a risk she'd be found. And I think it's a high risk if he'd left her either on the road or in the park. @mrjitty seemed to describe it as knowledge of guilt or something like that .

Supporting is his lack of hesitation in getting there. His choice of a location with a river when there are other spaces and the fact he didn't rape her in the car

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

 

[bos]

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

 

[mrjitty]

My interpretation which could be wrong is that the manslaughter charge doesn't rest on leaving her in the park. I read it that there has to be actual harm inflicted on her body during the rape which contributed to her death. But I think the reporter made a bit of a hash of relaying the judge's directions on that part.

MOO

Manslaughter doesn't need to be bodily harm, but includes unlawful act and dangerous acts - he could be intent on an illegal act like rape/assault, Libby gets away from him and stumbles off into the park. Then for example if he chased/assaulted/terrorised her and she was trying to get away but fell in the river and drowned, he is constructively responsible, even though he did not intend or foresee death.

Basically these are the types of cases where are reasonable person would have realised he was putting the victim at risk of harm

Chain of causation is important here - e.g if he just went home after the rape and Libby drowns 30 mins later, did he still cause the death?

 

[Sarahjo]

Ah see I'm the opposite. On two fronts definitely plus supporting

I can't see any reasonable scenario given the circumstances where Libby can get into that river herself from outside the park. Therefore I can't see why PR and his defence avoid that in park option.

Added to which - the weight given to any reasonable scenario for Libby getting there from that point by the defence seems very light given its his biggest defence.

Then I can't reconcile PRs later behaviour and the content of his lies with anybody that thinks there is a risk she'd be found. And I think it's a high risk if he'd left her either on the road or in the park. @mrjitty seemed to describe it as knowledge of guilt or something like that .

Supporting is his lack of hesitation in getting there. His choice of a location with a river when there are other spaces and the fact he didn't rape her in the car

You could say him arriving at oak road with LS was a coincidence, she may have directed him to beresford then stopped the 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?