GUILTY UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, found deceased, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #26

[wilkela]

You are not on the jury though, we haven't heard the evidence they have, and we need to accept their verdict and the judge's sentencing when she talks about concealment of the body. They were convinced that PR put her in the river. Jmo

I know I'm not in the jury and that's why I would like to know more what additional evidence they saw to decide he put her in the river ,I just missing this final puzzle
I'm accepting verdict I just would like to know details, how they came to this conclusion because here on the forum opinions was split not everyone felt 100% sure he put her in the river (evidence provided in Hull newspaper wasn't clear )
Thats all

 

[Newthoughts]

I agree with you. Its just his staring at Libby's parents seems to mean, according to me, his declaration *Its not over*. But.... maybe Im fanciful? My imagination sometimes runs wild as Im often told.

I think / hope the bar for appealing is set quite high otherwise it would cost the country a fortune.

I think the chance of new evidence is so unlikely its impossible.

He can't begin to claim he didn't have a fair trial. His defence barrister seems to have special expertise in defending rapists and other sexual offenders. Couldn't have asked for better by the looks of considering our taxes paid for it.

Looking at both barristers details he may well have had a fairer shot than Libby in that he got a specialist.

Oliver Saxby > Chambers of Stephen Hockman QC > London > England | Lawyer Profile

 

[HongKongPhooey]

I agree with you. Its just his staring at Libby's parents seems to mean, according to me, his declaration *Its not over*. But.... maybe Im fanciful? My imagination sometimes runs wild as Im often told.

I think he will try to appeal because he has no apparent remorse and is only concerned for himself. Not his victims.

When that fails, which I believe it will, he will be facing a very harsh reality in a potentially very hostile environment.

And in a bizarre twist of fate, it will be prison guards watching HIM all the time. I wonder how he will find that, for 27 years.

JMO

 

[Dotta]

I think / hope the bar for appealing is set quote high otherwise it would cost the country a fortune.

I think the chance of new evidence is so unlikely its impossible.

He can't begin to claim he didn't have a fair trial. His defence barrister seems to have special expertise in defending rapists and other sexual offenders. Couldn't have asked for better by the looks of considering our taxes paid for it.

Looking at both barristers details he may well have had a fairer shot than Libby in that he got a specialist.

Oliver Saxby > Chambers of Stephen Hockman QC > London > England | Lawyer Profile

Absolutely right. He lacked nothing: had interpreter, Defence, Jury = Fair Trial.

 

[Newthoughts]

I know I'm not in the jury and that's why I would like to know more what additional evidence they saw to decide he put her in the river ,I just missing this final puzzle
I'm accepting verdict I just would like to know details, how they came to this conclusion because here on the forum opinions was split not everyone felt 100% sure he put her in the river (evidence provided in Hull newspaper wasn't clear )
Thats all

We only heard a fraction of the evidence. The fact he went back was telling.

He had an excellent barrister defending him - one specialising in defending rapists. The jury spent time debating.

He had a fair trial. He can't complain because he chose what he did that night.

 

[Dotta]

I think he will try to appeal because he has no apparent remorse and is only concerned for himself. Not his victims.

When that fails, which I believe it will, he will be facing a very harsh reality in a potentially very hostile environment.

And in a bizarre twist of fate, it will be prison guards watching HIM all the time. I wonder how he will find that, for 27 years.

JMO

Ha ha Karma is a !!!

 

[porkypies]

I'll try it another way.

For sentencing - his crimes -

Defence says - we don't know if Libby died as a result of him trying to conceal his crime by putting her in the river. So basically could have been thrown in alive.
Jury says - black box - we don't know what they found as fact
Judge says - he raped her and then assaulted her, possibly not intending to kill her, and put her in the river dead or dying.

I'm wondering if she has to be more specific about what he did, for sentencing purposes - can she be even, not knowing what the jury thought? If she is certain he assaulted her after raping her why not say specifically asphyxiated her - or can't she do that?

Maybe there's no difference in terms of recording his crime which is murder. But I'm wondering if not intending to kill her, or pushing her in the river to conceal the rape, or intending to kill her, could be argued as unclear in terms of how the sentence was structured at appeal.

So I wondered if the judge is entitled to put in her own assessment of the evidence, if she doesn't know how the jury decided. Not only in terms of calculation of sentence but for assessment of his offending at his parole hearing.

It may be that she gets it from the route to verdict - that the jury were directed to only return murder if they were satisfied he assaulted her in addition to the rape.

(clear as mud? )

Thank You @Tortoise. I tried commenting on your original post earlier and wrote myself into a corner when I could not spell 'unascertained' hence my 2 deleted posts!
Now you've said some more.....I suggest that he must have assaulted her in addition to the rape by putting her into the river? because he is not qualified to declare anyone dead, and the timelines on each occasion do no allow for his checking for pulse or signs of life.

 

[wilkela]

We only heard a fraction of the evidence.The fact he went back was telling.

He had an excellent barrister defending him - one specialising in defending rapists. The jury spent time debating.

He had a fair trial. He can't complain because he chose what he did that night.

I think you don't understand what I want to say
I'm not arguing about his barrister or if he has right to complaint
It is not my point
I just would like to know what evidence judges saw to be sure beyond reasonable doubt he murder her because what we was able read in my opinion wasn't sufficient
For example you said "The fact he went back was telling."
For me it didn't tell he thrown her in the river it was your interpretation
I would like to hear judges interpretation what actually happened I feel unsatisfied with judge lack of explanation what happened that night and how the judges came to that conclusion
I belive they must have some strong evidence and I would like to hear what it was (as autopsy didn't give clear reason of her death)

 

[Joolz1975]

I think you don't understand what I want to say
I'm not arguing about his barrister or if he has right to complaint
It is not my point
I just would like to know what evidence judges saw to be sure beyond reasonable doubt he murder her because what we was able read in my opinion wasn't sufficient
For example you said "The fact he went back was telling."
For me it didn't tell he thrown her in the river it was your interpretation
I would like to hear judges interpretation what actually happened I feel unsatisfied with judge lack of explanation what happened that night and how the judges came to that conclusion
I belive they must have some strong evidence and I would like to hear what it was (as autopsy didn't give clear reason of her death)

Thing is we have no right to that information that isn't how it works. We are just members of the public, spectators for want of a better word so the ins and outs of what happened and the evidence that was presented is not something we are entitled to.

The jury had all the information and spent many hours deliberating it so we just have to trust that they made the right decision and the judge has carried out her duties in passing the correct sentence.

There really is little point mulling it over anymore IMO as our thoughts and opinions are pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things.

We are unlikely to hear anymore unless he tells the truth.

 

[Skigh]

I think you don't understand what I want to say
I'm not arguing about his barrister or if he has right to complaint
It is not my point
I just would like to know what evidence judges saw to be sure beyond reasonable doubt he murder her because what we was able read in my opinion wasn't sufficient
For example you said "The fact he went back was telling."
For me it didn't tell he thrown her in the river it was your interpretation
I would like to hear judges interpretation what actually happened I feel unsatisfied with judge lack of explanation what happened that night and how the judges came to that conclusion
I belive they must have some strong evidence and I would like to hear what it was (as autopsy didn't give clear reason of her death)

You are not going to hear any more than what has already been reported.
A jury has heard all the evidence and from that, given a verdict.

There is now really nothing left to discuss.

 

[Newthoughts]

I think you don't understand what I want to say
I'm not arguing about his barrister or if he has right to complaint
It is not my point
I just would like to know what evidence judges saw to be sure beyond reasonable doubt he murder her because what we was able read in my opinion wasn't sufficient
For example you said "The fact he went back was telling."
For me it didn't tell he thrown her in the river it was your interpretation
I would like to hear judges interpretation what actually happened I feel unsatisfied with judge lack of explanation what happened that night and how the judges came to that conclusion
I belive they must have some strong evidence and I would like to hear what it was (as autopsy didn't give clear reason of her death)

You don't need cause of death tho. Many murder victims are found in states of decomposition that mean cause can't be established. He had means, motive and opportunity.

I suspect the jury did what they're supposed to do and examined lots of pieces of evidence together.

The jury have done their job. The sentencing reflects the judges informed opinion. That's it.

 

[Newthoughts]

You are not going to hear any more than what has already been reported.
A jury has heard all the evidence and from that, given a verdict.

There is now really nothing left to discuss.

Yes good post. They had the info. They spent days discussing it. That's it.

 

[C.greek]

I have a genuine question. If he had admitted to raping her and leaving her alive (or so he thought) during his 2nd visit and then going back to check whether she was indeed alive and had left or whether as he said laying on the ground, aka dead, on his 3rd visit and in panic threw her in the river, what could have happened ?
ETA would he be put on trial still? Would they have considered his behaviour the same night after his 3rd visit?

 

[Ruthbullock]

I have a genuine question. If he had admitted to raping her and leaving her alive (or so he thought) during his 2nd visit and then going back to check whether she was indeed alive and had left or whether as he said laying on the ground, aka dead, on his 3rd visit and in panic threw her in the river, what could have happened ?
ETA would he be put on trial still? Would they have considered his behaviour the same night after his 3rd visit?

Not sure, but I would have thought manslaughter, but possibly still murder

 

[C.greek]

Not sure, but I would have thought manslaughter, but possibly still murder

So he would still be put on trial with a jury?

 

[JosieJo]

So he would still be put on trial with a jury?

I think it would depend on whether the prosecution accepted his version of events ..and how sure they would be on a murder conviction

 

[porkypies]

@Newthoughts. wrote:
I think the chance of new evidence is so unlikely its impossible.

I don't think it's possible for anything to be 'so unlikely that it's impossible', and in general terms, unlikely does not ever mean that it didn't happen, I think likely and unlikely are risky and unhelpful descriptions to use in serious situations.

As for new evidence (of anything) being impossible - there was a time when fingerprinting was impossible, and a time when DNA matching was impossible, and maybe a time when a witness to something finally decides to report it, or when something is found in a river at an unusually low tide/during a drought etc etc.

 

[C.greek]

I think it would depend on whether the prosecution accepted his version of events ..and how sure they would be on a murder conviction

Thanks, so it would be for the prosecution to decide.

 

[Kelly C]

I have a genuine question. If he had admitted to raping her and leaving her alive (or so he thought) during his 2nd visit and then going back to check whether she was indeed alive and had left or whether as he said laying on the ground, aka dead, on his 3rd visit and in panic threw her in the river, what could have happened ?
ETA would he be put on trial still? Would they have considered his behaviour the same night after his 3rd visit?

He has lied so many times that he wouldn’t be believed and wouldn’t get a new trial or jury based on another web of lies. His true character was exposed. We know he is a serial liar. He has dug his own hole there. Thankfully!

 

[C.greek]

He has lied so many times that he wouldn’t be believed and wouldn’t get a new trial or jury based on another web of lies. His true character was exposed. We know he is a serial liar. He has dug his own hole there. Thankfully!

I meant before not now which as you say he wouldn't be believed. Thankfully of course!