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

[Steve2021]

I think if the conviction is manslaughter there will be an appeal and it might have a good chance of succeeding.

The prosecution's case for murder is PR asphyxiated Libby. This is not, imo, compatible with manslaughter.

If we go down the manslaughter route with no asphyxiation wouldn't the prosecution have made that a scenario for deliberation, and not leave it to the judge to give very short directions because it hasn't been explained to them as a scenario before her summing up?

IMO we get into a lot of difficulty with PR expecting Libby to come to harm on her own after raping her and leaving her in the same state (in terms of drunknenness and hypothermia - not state of mind) he found her in, albeit in a different location.

There is the alleged difficulty in getting into the river.

Did he in fact increase her vulnerability by leaving her near a river?

By questioning PR on Libby's vulnerability I suspect the prosecutor was trying to enhance the seriousness of the rape for sentencing purposes. But I don't think it was to push them towards a manslaughter verdict.

The prosecutor even said this to PR -

"Mr Wright asked: “That girl was wearing a mini skirt as she was sitting on the pavement shivering in that weather - is that right?

“That girl crying, shivering, cold, was injured because she had a cut to her knee, is that right?

“That girl, according to you, was so drunk she was almost walking out into the traffic on the road, is that right?”

Pawel Relowicz returns to witness stand as week two of trial ends


I go back to the judge's summing up -

Manslaughter verdict an option
Justice Lambert has told the jury it has occurred to her manslaughter is an option for the verdict but it has not been explained.

She said: “There is no count of manslaughter on the indictment but it can be returned as an alternative verdict to murder.

“That would arise if you were sure Pawel Relowicz assaulted Libby Squire and it caused her death in the sense it made one or more contributions to her death and whether he intended it to.

"If the answer is no, the verdict will be not guilty of murder but you should consider whether that person intended to cause some harm and then if you are sure of that you will return a guilty verdict of manslaughter."

Libby Squire murder trial updates as jury consider verdict

I submit there might be a bit missing from the reporting before she says "if the answer is no" - along the lines of 'are you sure Libby was asphyxiated by the defendant?'

I think it's clear that PR's intention is key in deciding manslaughter, and it would be hard to say he intended Libby to stray into the river.

Unless they are confident he pursued her there, or carried her there, which would be murder, IMO. I don't see manslaughter sticking in this case.

MOO

I feel sure the judge must have said a lot more to the jury than this about what they'd need to find proven in order to return manslaughter. The simple one paragraph explanation printed here is inadequate and would surely result in a successful appeal.

There needs to have been a criminal act (the rape) which a reasonable person would believe exposed someone (Libby) to a risk of some harm. There doesn't need to be a risk of death per se. It isn't relevant in my understanding whether the person committing the criminal act intended to cause harm.

Thus it is peculiar the judge should state "...you should consider whether that person intended to cause some harm and then if you are sure of that you will return a guilty verdict of manslaughter".

Unless she has clarified that an intention to harm is automatically established in a rape (which I'd be sceptical it would be) this statement seems to me too generous to PR.

But if she has simply directed as reported that it is automatically manslaughter should the jury decide a. it's not murder but that b. PR did rape Libby and c. did intend to cause her harm (without adding that that harm had to be beyond any that may be imputed to the act of rape per se), then that is too unfair on PR, and will surely be appealed as it also has to be proven d. that a reasonable person would believe the rape exposed Libby to a risk of harm.

It's clear I think to us all that the law of manslaughter is really quite complicated. You do have to wonder how well the jury can understand it. We've probably considered it more than they will, and whilst they can ask the judge they can't go home and Google it. I used to be a lawyer and I'm not 100% sure!

I would suggest if you concluded PR left Libby exposed to the likelihood of further harm you could find for manslaughter. Easy to find that if you find he left her lying on the riverbank with a rising tide, but if you find he left her in the road or that you simply don't know where he left her, it's maybe not looking so good? Remember for manslaughter like the murder you are still meant to be deciding you're sure beyond reasonable doubt.

Complicated isn't it!!!!

 

[Newthoughts]

You have to "be sure" you can't convict otherwise ...that is the uk standard ..you can't convict because its the "most likely" scenario

I disagree that you can't ever be sure ...im sure he raped her but there are no witnesses or cctv ....why am I sure ? Because of the evidence.

We are lucky to have the amount of evidence we do. It means we're 99% sure he took her to the park and we're 100% sure she ended up in a river. That is more than a lot of cases

There are only limited realistic options in between and a raft of evidence to support them. I cannot see an alternative realistic option given her state and his.

How does she get from Beresford Road to the river?

 

[Newthoughts]

This argument about the inaccessibility of the river all adds up to him, or a jury, not thinking she will come to harm by him leaving her there and getting in the river by herself. IMO

I agree with your comment but it's not quite what I'm saying.

If he'd said he'd left her in the park close to the river - there would be doubt in my mind.

I'd still think he did it. I'd still think it unlikely she'd negotiate her way in herself but I wouldn't be able to convict because I'd have reasonable doubts because the distance would be reduced.

If he left her where he says he did I honestly think her journey there too unlikely. Her physical state and the lack of any forensics makes it impossible in my mind.

If he's lied about leaving her outside the park - a certainty - why?

Who was the man seen.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Thanks just found what he said on the stand.

Mr Saxby asked whether Libby did anything that would suggest to Relowicz she liked him sexually to which he has replied “no".

Oak Road playing fields
Relowicz said he stopped the car as Libby "started making sounds like she wanted to vomit."

He said: “Once I stopped she undid her seatbelt and ran off from the car. She went about two metres [towards Oak Road] and there she fell to the ground.

“I got out of the car and approached her and helped her to get up. She was making a sound as if she would be sick. I helped her by way of grabbing hold of both of her arms and she got up. She was facing me.

So correct me if I’m wrong but is he saying he didn’t park on Oak Rd where we all think he parked.
From CCTV footage, picture and google maps it looks about right to me. IMO

So she did nothing to suggest she liked him sexually, and was being sick. And he thought it was consensual sex. Vile.

 

[Vermont24]

Firstly, @Ruthbullock the new bollards are directly alongside the 'green shed'. As you say, they weren't there at the time of the incident. Likewise, the abandoned buildings alongside the river have since been fenced off. I actually noticed a few more CCTV cameras which look like they have a clear view of Beresford Ave and conceivably the occupants of cars travelling along it. Let's hope the jury have seen something we haven't.

The gate isn't actually a kissing gate. Here it is, looking back from inside the park. I've also marked my position on the map for clarity. A few more coming up...

 

[JosieJo]

We are lucky to have the amount of evidence we do. It means we're 99% sure he took her to the park and we're 100% sure she ended up in a river. That is more than a lot of cases

There are only limited realistic options in between and a raft of evidence to support them. I cannot see an alternative realistic option given her state and his.

How does she get from Beresford Road to the river?

It doesn't really matter we are lucky to have the evidence we have it still may not be enough

The defence doesn't have to prove anything

The prosecution have to give us enough evidence he killed her himself and put her in the river

Its the prosecution case he took her into the park .. killed her or harmed her and put her in the river dying or dead

Taking it step by step ...can I be sure he took her in the park ...I could just about go with that because screams and man in park

Can they prove the next step ...rape ...yes I'm sure he raped due to dna and the amount of evidence we have around her not being able to consent

Can they prove by their evidence he killed her ...imo I can't be sure due to pathology report ..no further evidence provided...so not sure

Can they prove he put her in river ..no evidence..pathologist report no help...no cctv ..not sure

Do his lies help ...no as could be lying around rape only
Does not believing his version help ...no as again could be just manufactured because he raped

Does his 3rd visit to Oak rd make me sure he killed her ...no because he could just have easy gone to make sure she wasn't lying on the ground somewhere and not found her or gone to collect any evidence left

Taking all the bits of evidence imo doesn't make me sure he killed her and put her in the river ...only sure he took her in park and raped her

 

[tedtink]

More than we might think, I suspect, especially when adrenaline is running high.

Adrenaline was high?
Why would PR be stressed at that point? (theoretically having his hand over Libby's mouth)

I thought the general consensus here was that he was on a sexual high.
Adrenaline is dumped into the bloodstream as part of the fight or flight response.
He wasn't the one fleeing danger.

 

[JosieJo]

We are lucky to have the amount of evidence we do. It means we're 99% sure he took her to the park and we're 100% sure she ended up in a river. That is more than a lot of cases

There are only limited realistic options in between and a raft of evidence to support them. I cannot see an alternative realistic option given her state and his.

How does she get from Beresford Road to the river?

She wasn't in Beresford...in both versions she was in oak rd by the open park gate

 

[Vermont24]

Here's the view from the first of the three benches you'd encounter. The consensus seems to be that this was the one which forensics focused on early in the investigation. This should illustrate the extent to which the river is hidden by the treeline and gradient of the embankment.

 

[bos]

No I am going with, "There are numerous credible possibilities and I cannot know which one of them actually happened; therefore I don't have enough evidence for a conviction."

The distinction between plausible and probable using inference is discussed here The reasonable doubt standard as inference to the best explanation.
As I read it, it IS possible to get to BARD as being “sure” varies between anything over 50% and 100% likelihood in previous surveys of jurors thus preponderance of evidence/balance of possibility can translate to being sure even if that isn’t 100% probability.

I accept that I get to that point partly through having read lots on the forensic psychology of sex offenders which the jury aren’t allowed to do.

 

[Vermont24]

Continuing along the same path, you come to a fork just before the treeline. Left takes you across the playing fields, right takes you towards the pond area, and straight on, along this track, takes you up the embankment and to the river.

This is how I imagined LS came to be beside the river, probably because it's the route I've habitually taken for over 30 years. However, emerging onto the riverside via this path would leave you directly in view of the Mauri CCTV camera, so that's changed my thinking.

 

[Tortoise]

I agree with your comment but it's not quite what I'm saying.

If he'd said he'd left her in the park close to the river - there would be doubt in my mind.

I'd still think he did it. I'd still think it unlikely she'd negotiate her way in herself but I wouldn't be able to convict because I'd have reasonable doubts because the distance would be reduced.

If he left her where he says he did I honestly think her journey there too unlikely. Her physical state and the lack of any forensics makes it impossible in my mind.

If he's lied about leaving her outside the park - a certainty - why?

Who was the man seen.

The difficulty with this stance, imo, is that you don't have to believe he is telling the truth about not going in the park. It's not a case of if I don't believe him the prosecution must by default have automatically proven he deliberately killed her. The jury wasn't told if they find he was in the park and lied about that they can ignore everything else and convict for murder. They were specifically told you must not convict only because he lied.

All the evidence must be examined, including why he would lie about being outside the park. Because he murdered her is not the only reason he might lie, an automatic adverse inference, it could be because he thinks the jury will think he had a hand in Libby's death just by being closer to the location Libby died. Rape in the park does not mean he asphyxiated Libby and put her in the river.

 

[tedtink]

Continuing along the same path, you come to a fork just before the treeline. Left takes you across the playing fields, right takes you towards the pond area, and straight on, along this track, takes you up the embankment and to the river.

This is how I imagined LS came to be beside the river, probably because it's the route I've habitually taken for over 30 years. However, emerging onto the riverside via this path would leave you directly in view of the Mauri CCTV camera, so that's changed my thinking.

Really helpful thank you.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Continuing along the same path, you come to a fork just before the treeline. Left takes you across the playing fields, right takes you towards the pond area, and straight on, along this track, takes you up the embankment and to the river.

This is how I imagined LS came to be beside the river, probably because it's the route I've habitually taken for over 30 years. However, emerging onto the riverside via this path would leave you directly in view of the Mauri CCTV camera, so that's changed my thinking.

Thanks for Vermont for doing this, and it is freezing outside too!

 

[Vermont24]

The area next to the boatshed has good access, with slightly less of an incline, to the river and is concealed by the trees which surround the pond. Essentially, this is the most remote area of the park. The area of the river bank that this path leads to also seems to be just beyond the view of the Mauri CCTV cameras (or at least the footage we've seen).

 

[Cherwell]

Adrenaline was high?
Why would PR be stressed at that point? (theoretically having his hand over Libby's mouth)

I thought the general consensus here was that he was on a sexual high.
Adrenaline is dumped into the bloodstream as part of the fight or flight response.
He wasn't the one fleeing danger.

I didn't specify that he'd be stressed, although he may have been if she had been screaming and he was afraid someone might hear and come and investigate. The point we're discussing is whether someone might not realise the consequences of placing a hand over someone's mouth. And yes, sexual excitement is another kind of distraction that could overwhelm someone to that degree.

 

[NottReds50]

Thank you @Vermont24

I'm pretty conflicted now.

Would you say that it's not "that easy" to get into the river, as in stumble in?

But if you took the direct access, you'd likely to get get caught by CCTV, unless there are images we haven't seen or be lucky to be not seen. Whether walking alone or with someone else there.

And if you turn right, is that pushing the ~7/8 minutes stated?

 

[jamjim]

Top work @Vermont24, thank you!

 

[Vermont24]

Thank you @Vermont24

I'm pretty conflicted now.

Would you say that it's not "that easy" to get into the river, as in stumble in?

But if you took the direct access, you'd likely to get get caught by CCTV, unless there are images we haven't seen or be lucky to be not seen. Whether walking alone or with someone else there.

And if you turn right, is that pushing the ~7/8 minutes stated?

I've avoided speculating too much on this as it inevitably leads towards talk of the possibility of suicide. I don't think she entered the water by accident, put it that way. As for timings, there's no issues as far as I'm concerned. If you knew what you were doing and where you were going, you could be in and out in a matter of minutes. I can time myself walking at a normal pace from the gate to the river if people are interested. I'll even run it later in the week.

 

[NottReds50]

I've avoided speculating too much on this as it inevitably leads towards talk of the possibility of suicide. I don't think she entered the water by accident, put it that way.

I agree, and backs up my initial thoughts really. Going down the route of physiology and terrain alone, it looks improbable she did.

Edited after seeing your remarks about timing. I guess this lines up with where he parked initially, straight run through the gates, into the park and so on