Found Deceased UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #12 *ARREST*

[CrazyLilBlondie]

Polish butcher, 24, arrested over Libby Squire's disappearance denies 12 unrelated offences | Daily Mail Online

"Addressing Relowicz, Judge Watson said: 'There will be a further hearing of this case in June. You can attend by way of video link"

 

[Strontium69]

I found this stock drone pic of the area, it's a good angle to show a lot of the parts of the park and river bank.

(I tend to get my bearings mixed up as I always consider the river running north/south, so with the bends I often label things north/south by mistake!)

(1) Main Car Park (Where Beresford Avenue ends at Oak Road)
The 'house' in the park is in the trees next to the car park. I have indicated roughly what I believe is the coverage of sight/sound from the back of the house.

Dotted Red Line = Oak Road continues on to meet Clough Road

White Line is the Croda Fence

(2) Bench in the park where forensics were photographed at night (I believe - yet to confirm...)

(3) Area of grass where police were photographed removing something in an evidence bag (I believe - yet to confirm...)

Abandoned building enclosure:
(4) 2 Storey abandoned building (roofless) where forensics where photographed;

(5) Inside the enclosure, looking towards the low story roofless building.

(6) Overgrown area between the Boathouse and the abandoned enclosure.

(7) The Boathouse. Boarded up, locked, secure, has roof.

(8) Forensics at the top of the set of river steps - looking at the back of the boarded up boathouse; used to house long rowing boats.

(9) Second set of steps

(10) CCTV at Croda

(11) Allotments

Blue line is Barmston Drain that runs behind Wellesley Avenue.

Clough Road is marked - incidentally the red circle is the brand new Police station.

I've also marked a dotted blue line - from this part of the pond area, there is almost a direct line following the path through the trees, across the grass to the carpark.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Afternoon all. Busy Weekend.

No suprises in Court then.

Just catching up on thread. Lots of technical questions seemingly. Where's Chester? He's good on this and I think probably has answered the most recent ones in previous posts/threads. ( Probably on the Guinness somewhere)

I do urge us all , while the thread has stalled somewhat, and if havent already done so, to go back and watch all Strontium's videos and thumbnail posts. Well worth the time and effort to do so.

Hi Vermont. It gets more like a Newland Residents Assoc meeting in here!! Next up, Dog Mess and the Folk Day dress code?

All doing a grand job. Sorry its a fleeting visit

Ps. Did Joelle go to Court again Today? The same Sweater and Tracksuit Bottoms!!!!! (PR not Joelle!) I think I saw Q about 'why Sheffield and why July?' But that couldve been on last hearing ( ans is earlier too) . I bet he's starting to s*!t himself a bit.

Gl gl gl

 

[Happylappy101]

He may not be going not guilty in the sense that you are assuming.

He may be making a case for not guilty on the grounds of...... mental illness??

So not, not guilty as in I didn't do it, but not guilty in I did it but wasn't responsible for my actions, by reason of mental impairment

Defences for these kind of offences based on mental illness etc would only be insanity; diminished responsibility (where you would need evidence of a recognised mental condition) is only an available ‘defence’ for murder to reduce a plea to involuntary manslaughter. Even then, it would be not guilty by reason of insanity, so unless he was looking to raise the defence of insanity, I can’t imagine he would be trying to.

However, if you were looking at the offences and the mens rea (mental element) required in the offence was something like “intention to...” (a crime of specific intent) then he might be able to plead not guilty on the basis of a technicality. E.g. that he was mentally unstable and was unable to form intention. However, I doubt all 12 of the crimes are specific intent crimes and rather are basic intent crimes (so the mens rea can be satisfied on recklessness, I.e., appreciating the risk and going on to do it anyway) and so it is unlikely even with a mental illness to be unable to appreciate the risk. Could be possible to argue though so I’m glad you brought it up! Not a ‘defence’ as such however.
I would, if I were representing him, be heavily leaning towards not guilty on basis of technicalities of the elements of the offences.

 

[LucyRocket]

He doesn't have a choice of clothes. They are prison issue. It may be a different set, because in most prisons you have the choice to keep one set and wash it yourself, or you can throw them in with general laundry and get another random set back, but there's never any nice fashionable surprises in there. Grey sweatshirt and grey joggers every time

 

[Zazie]

Thank you for attending on our behalf today, @Joelle88"!

Re "Watching an unconsenting female in a private act on Chester Ave"; and "watching an unconsenting female in a private act on Manvers St".

Anyone else think this has to imply he was recording and archiving his outings, either live or (more far-fetched) planting cameras in bedrooms/bathrooms during break-ins?

With the burglaries, we assume police have found the stolen goods in his possession. With voyeurism, what proof other than footage - maybe helpfully archived by street and date - would stand up in court? (Looking at @Happylappy101!)

The women may have been aware of being watched through a window, reported it and then the police retained DNA from the scene? Would cash-strapped police deploy expensive forensics and DNA testing for a report of a peeping tom, or just take a description? I think they have to have found an image archive on a hard drive at his house, stashed in the eaves. If that's the case, what will his defence be? A big boy did it and sold me the footage?

Because of the close proximity of his activities to home, I think he was clocking fanciable women he passed in his daily life; noting where they live; then attempting to bag images of them for his private pleasure, possibly under cover of dogwalking or jogging. I'm amazed he wasn't outed earlier as a known creep given the geographic concentration of his offences.

 

[jamjim]

Well, I’ve been at court again today. There were so many reporters there, regrettably, I didn’t take down the street names of the new alleged crimes, instead I spent all my time in there watching Pawel closely - I could kick myself!

I do remember clearly - outraging public decency - Masturbating on Newland Avenue.

Voyeurism - watching an unconsenting female in a private act on Chester Avenue.

Voyeurism - watching an unconsenting female in a private act on either Manvers Avenue or Manvers Street.

He was still without his glasses and had a new shorter hairstyle.

At times, he was chewing the inside of his lip.
He didn’t turn his head to look in the direction of the public gallery, but at times had a quick glance out of the corner of his eyes.

Two Humberside Police Officers were in attendance, one of them jotted down notes in a book, the other officer didn’t seem to take his eyes off Pawel.

It was mentioned in court, that the courtroom for the trial must have the facilities to show the CCTV footage evidence.

It was also mentioned, that there are a huge amount of witnesses, but Pawel’s Barrister told the Judge that they would likely be paired down before the trial.

Ten days were given for the trial as extra time was given due to Pawel needing a translator.

Many thanks again @Joelle88!

 

[Strontium69]

You're a trooper @Joelle88 wish I could have gone myself!

 

[Joelle88]

That might actually be Chatham Ave, rather than Chester.

Chester Avenue off Manvers Street.

 

[Happylappy101]

Thank you for attending on our behalf today, @Joelle88"!

Re "Watching an unconsenting female in a private act on Chester Ave"; and "watching an unconsenting female in a private act on Manvers St".

Anyone else think this has to imply he was recording and archiving his outings, either live or (more far-fetched) planting cameras in bedrooms/bathrooms during break-ins?

With the burglaries, we assume police have found the stolen goods in his possession. With voyeurism, what proof other than footage - maybe helpfully archived by street and date - would stand up in court? (Looking at @Happylappy101!)

The women may have been aware of being watched through a window, reported it and then the police retained DNA from the scene? Would cash-strapped police deploy expensive forensics and DNA testing for a report of a peeping tom, or just take a description? I think they have to have found an image archive on a hard drive at his house, stashed in the eaves. If that's the case, what will his defence be? A big boy did it and sold me the footage?

Because of the close proximity of his activities to home, I think he was clocking fanciable women he passed in his daily life; noting where they live; then attempting to bag images of them for his private pleasure, possibly under cover of dogwalking or jogging. I'm amazed he wasn't outed earlier as a known creep given the geographic concentration of his offences.

Re voyeurism, s67 Sexual Offences Act 2003 is your bible. Split up into two main headers: recording and observing. Can be committed by recording or installing equipment without consent of victim and with the intention that he or another will benefit sexually from the act - e.g evidence on his phone. It can also be committed by observing sexual acts without consent of victim and done so w intention of sexual gratification of himself. This header slightly harder to prove evidentially, could be found on eyewitness statements or CCTV though!

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Defences for these kind of offences based on mental illness etc would only be insanity; diminished responsibility (where you would need evidence of a recognised mental condition) is only an available ‘defence’ for murder to reduce a plea to involuntary manslaughter. Even then, it would be not guilty by reason of insanity, so unless he was looking to raise the defence of insanity, I can’t imagine he would be trying to.

However, if you were looking at the offences and the mens rea (mental element) required in the offence was something like “intention to...” (a crime of specific intent) then he might be able to plead not guilty on the basis of a technicality. E.g. that he was mentally unstable and was unable to form intention. However, I doubt all 12 of the crimes are specific intent crimes and rather are basic intent crimes (so the mens rea can be satisfied on recklessness, I.e., appreciating the risk and going on to do it anyway) and so it is unlikely even with a mental illness to be unable to appreciate the risk. Could be possible to argue though so I’m glad you brought it up! Not a ‘defence’ as such however.
I would, if I were representing him, be heavily leaning towards not guilty on basis of technicalities of the elements of the offences.

He will not have the precise details of any evidence against him at this point? Typical to wait until later in process. The likely Guilty pleas (on some counts) will come later imo and be based on evidence held and advice given at that point in time. Imho

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Thank you for attending on our behalf today, @Joelle88"!

Re "Watching an unconsenting female in a private act on Chester Ave"; and "watching an unconsenting female in a private act on Manvers St".

Anyone else think this has to imply he was recording and archiving his outings, either live or (more far-fetched) planting cameras in bedrooms/bathrooms during break-ins?

With the burglaries, we assume police have found the stolen goods in his possession. With voyeurism, what proof other than footage - maybe helpfully archived by street and date - would stand up in court? (Looking at @Happylappy101!)

The women may have been aware of being watched through a window, reported it and then the police retained DNA from the scene? Would cash-strapped police deploy expensive forensics and DNA testing for a report of a peeping tom, or just take a description? I think they have to have found an image archive on a hard drive at his house, stashed in the eaves. If that's the case, what will his defence be? A big boy did it and sold me the footage?

Because of the close proximity of his activities to home, I think he was clocking fanciable women he passed in his daily life; noting where they live; then attempting to bag images of them for his private pleasure, possibly under cover of dogwalking or jogging. I'm amazed he wasn't outed earlier as a known creep given the geographic concentration of his offences.

I think possibly they may have been asleep (private act)

 

[LucyRocket]

Re voyeurism, s67 Sexual Offences Act 2003 is your bible. Split up into two main headers: recording and observing. Can be committed by recording or installing equipment without consent of victim and with the intention that he or another will benefit sexually from the act - e.g evidence on his phone. It can also be committed by observing sexual acts without consent of victim and done so w intention of sexual gratification of himself. This header slightly harder to prove evidentially, could be found on eyewitness statements or CCTV though!

Or maybe he recorded it all in a grey leather bound wilko's journal

 

[bos]

Well, I’ve been at court again today. There were so many reporters there, regrettably, I didn’t take down the street names of the new alleged crimes, instead I spent all my time in there watching Pawel closely - I could kick myself!

I do remember clearly - outraging public decency - Masturbating on Newland Avenue.

Voyeurism - watching an unconsenting female in a private act on Chester Avenue.

Voyeurism - watching an unconsenting female in a private act on either Manvers Avenue or Manvers Street.

He was still without his glasses and had a new shorter hairstyle.

At times, he was chewing the inside of his lip.
He didn’t turn his head to look in the direction of the public gallery, but at times had a quick glance out of the corner of his eyes.

Two Humberside Police Officers were in attendance, one of them jotted down notes in a book, the other officer didn’t seem to take his eyes off Pawel.

It was mentioned in court, that the courtroom for the trial must have the facilities to show the CCTV footage evidence.

It was also mentioned, that there are a huge amount of witnesses, but Pawel’s Barrister told the Judge that they would likely be paired down before the trial.

Ten days were given for the trial as extra time was given due to Pawel needing a translator.

No Wellesley on 28th January then, bang goes that idea!

 

[Happylappy101]

He will not have the precise details of any evidence against him at this point? Typical to wait until later in process. The likely Guilty pleas (on some counts) will come later imo and be based on evidence held and advice given at that point in time. Imho

It’s difficult. Under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, you would really have needed to mention any kind of mental illness in your statement to the police, otherwise silence in that interview can be admitted to the jury in evidence for the prosecution of defence fabrication. So if Pawel gave a “no comment” interview to police, his excusal in court on basis of mental disorder for not committing any elements of any crimes he is being tried for is going to be shot down by the jury because the prosecution are then allowed to adduce evidence to prove “well, why on earth didn’t you say that when questioned?”. Hope I’m making sense!

 

[Zazie]

Re voyeurism, s67 Sexual Offences Act 2003 is your bible. Split up into two main headers: recording and observing. Can be committed by recording or installing equipment without consent of victim and with the intention that he or another will benefit sexually from the act - e.g evidence on his phone. It can also be committed by observing sexual acts without consent of victim and done so w intention of sexual gratification of himself. This header slightly harder to prove evidentially, could be found on eyewitness statements or CCTV though!

Thanks for this.

So if he recorded his victims, that wouldn't necessarily be specifically mentioned in the charge of "voyeurism" in court today? Also, am I right in thinking that the new Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 does away with any loopholes re proving a sexual motive for recording? The recording is itself an offence?

 

[Happylappy101]

Or maybe he recorded it all in a grey leather bound wilko's journal

This would be hearsay evidence but can be adduced under multiple gateways so it’s likely it’ll be admitted. Very interesting observation

 

[LucyRocket]

I think possibly they may have been asleep (private act)

Going to the toilet, taking a shower/ bath, getting dressed/ undressed, doing any number of private acts that you can do with your partner (or someone else's), interfering with yourself... the possibilities are ALMOST endless. Think of everything you do within your home every day that you wouldn't do on the front lawn

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

It’s difficult. Under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, you would really have needed to mention any kind of mental illness in your statement to the police, otherwise silence in that interview can be admitted to the jury in evidence for the prosecution of defence fabrication. So if Pawel gave a “no comment” interview to police, his excusal in court on basis of mental disorder for not committing any elements of any crimes he is being tried for is going to be shot down by the jury because the prosecution are then allowed to adduce evidence to prove “well, why on earth didn’t you say that when questioned?”. Hope I’m making sense!

Not to me. Ive not mentioned any mental health defence. It's madness imo .
But yes

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Going to the toilet, taking a shower/ bath, getting dressed/ undressed, doing any number of private acts that you can do with your partner (or someone else's), interfering with yourself... the possibilities are ALMOST endless. Think of everything you do within your home every day that you wouldn't do on the front lawn

Yes I see. Im suggesting at least One could be sleeping though