UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #20

[Winterbells]

Yes. We need @mrjitty. It’s got something to do with not wanting to put manslaughter on the menu because it could open the door for the perp to appeal. Or something. But the judge could intervene and instruct manslaughter to be an option. There are ways it can be added, anyway, even at this stage, it seems.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Just as a reminder- PR was arrested 6th Feb 2019. LS body recovered 21st March. Inquest 25th March 2019. CPS agreed he could be charged on 19th October 2019. For such a serious charge, that is an immense amount of backwards and forwards between CPS and the police about having enough evidence for the charges to be brought forward to court. I do think this fact is still sitting in the back of my head when I am questioning the evidence being presented and even though I hope it will be enough, I’m not counting my chickens yet, especially as we haven’t heard the defence.

 

[Cherwell]

Mr Alford says he was looking out of the window for “three or four minutes” before he saw a “male walking off the park.”
He said: “He was walking in a manner where he wasn’t looking behind, asserting where he wanted to go, like he wanted to get off the park.
“When I first saw him, he was walking off the park with his head straight forward and moving with an urgency and then he left.”
When questioned by defence barrister Oliver Saxby QC, Mr Alford said he was certain of the time that he had woken up, but that he had not heard anyone getting into a car after seeing the man leaving the fields.
I think I misunderstood/ got confused by thread discussion, what Mr Alford said when discussing what he heard and saw. He wasn’t seen running, but walking away in the park and didn't hear a car engine start either.
Libby Squire trial told of 'desperate screams' at playing fields

It does make sense that he wouldn't run.
If anyone turned up to investigate the screams, the sight of someone running would immediately arouse suspicion that they might be the cause of the screams.
He still wanted to be out of there as quickly as possible, so he settled for a fast urgent walk.

 

[Ruthbullock]

It does make sense that he wouldn't run.
If anyone turned up to investigate the screams, the sight of someone running would immediately arouse suspicion that they might be the cause of the screams.
He still wanted to be out of there as quickly as possible, so he settled for a fast urgent walk.

But as curious as we all are and we all love a good nit pick on here- many of us questioned the timing and whether it was possible when he was running it, now he is walking urgently, it would have been even more difficult. It changes nothing if you firmly believe it was manageable in the 7.5 minutes, but if you were questioning it at running pace, then that pretty much pushes you over the fence onto it’s even less likely at a walking pace. I generally think that a jury made up from a variety of people will to some degree have the variation of opinions and questions about evidence that we raise here.

 

[mrjitty]

Perhaps @mrjitty can give a layman's version?

This is something we studied at law school - but that was back in the 90s for me so this is some broad strokes

Alternative counts

Manslaughter is actually already included as an alternative to murder, and where it emerges as a serious verdict option, the judge will so direct the jury - even if it was not charged in the indictment.

Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

However it is generally preferable that the Crown would charge manslaughter in the alternative to murder where it appears as a serious issue at trial. This might be where the accused intends to argue a partial defence. So e.g the accused admits killing the victim but claims it was merely negligent, or where a jury might infer negligence - Pistorius is an example of a case where the judge did not find murder, but found manslaughter as an alternativeat trial - despite the Crown arguing for murder.

Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, above, it is preferable to include any appropriate alternative counts in the indictment. The reason for this is to avoid reliance on the trial judge or prosecuting counsel in bringing any such alternatives to the jury's attention. See further R v Foster (Mark) [2007] EWCA Crim 2869

All that said, there are tactical reasons why the Crown might not include manslaughter in the indictment

In the present case, the the Crown declines to do so, because their case is murder and never manslaughter. Critically this prevents PR making a guilty plea to manslaughter.

Consideration of whether to include a lesser or alternative count in the indictment will include whether that would be likely to attract a plea of guilty and, if so, whether such a plea would be acceptable. Considerations/views should be recorded on the file.

In the present case, neither crown nor defence alleges manslaughter - so in my view the issue will not arise.

 

[Ruthbullock]

This is something we studied at law school - but that was back in the 90s for me so this is some broad strokes

Alternative counts

Manslaughter is actually already included as an alternative to murder, and where it emerges as a serious verdict option, the judge will so direct the jury - even if it was not charged in the indictment.

Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

However it is generally preferable that the Crown would charge manslaughter in the alternative to murder where it appears as a serious issue at trial. This might be where the accused intends to argue a partial defence. So e.g the accused admits killing the victim but claims it was merely negligent, or where a jury might infer negligence - Pistorius is an example of a case where the judge did not find murder, but found manslaughter as an alternativeat trial - despite the Crown arguing for murder.



All that said, there are tactical reasons why the Crown might not include manslaughter in the indictment

In the present case, the the Crown declines to do so, because their case is murder and never manslaughter. Critically this prevents PR making a guilty plea to manslaughter.



In the present case, neither crown nor defence alleges manslaughter - so in my view the issue will not arise.

So could the defence have requested it to be considered as manslaughter?

 

[Newthoughts]

Just as a reminder- PR was arrested 6th Feb 2019. LS body recovered 21st March. Inquest 25th March 2019. CPS agreed he could be charged on 19th October 2019. For such a serious charge, that is an immense amount of backwards and forwards between CPS and the police about having enough evidence for the charges to be brought forward to court. I do think this fact is still sitting in the back of my head when I am questioning the evidence being presented and even though I hope it will be enough, I’m not counting my chickens yet, especially as we haven’t heard the defence.

Whilst the majority if not all of us have a gut feeling that he is so, so guilty of rape, I think it’s a mixed bag for murder. The case is reminding me of the fact it took so long for the CPS to agree to pressing charges. We all questioned at the time why it was taking so long for him to be charged. I can’t believe the yeast factory didn’t pick anything up on CCTV at the river bank- as the screams witness said it was a clear night with a full moon and he could see across the park. Whilst Libby was mainly wearing dark clothing the Welly CCTV showed she had bare legs and they would contrast on CCTV footage from across the river, Even if it just picked up odd movements in the reeds, one person stumbling in would cause some movement. Someone carrying another body through the reeds and wading through to the clearer water would have created something striking and significant on the CCTV surely. I’m still of the gut feeling she ran/walked/ even crawled and stumbled into the reeds and then was so disorientated she couldn’t get herself back out. Don’t misunderstand me- I believe he should never be freed from jail, just sharing my opinion on what evidence has been presented so far (that we know of).

CPS in cash strapped Britain sadly do not allow charges unless they are pretty watertight.

All if the tests done take time and probably wouldn't have needed to be priority because PR was already in prison.

Trawling thru hours of CCTV looking for his car takes time.

And getting him convicted for his previous offences was very useful in allowing the jury access to why he cruised around student areas.

Interviewing friends and colleagues takes time as well

Plus time was a luxury they had once he was safely locked up

I think taking the evidence as a whole he is guilty.

 

[Dotta]

I've been following this case on Websleuths since the beginning and remember another discussed scenario well. 12.30 Heathcote street - woman's screaming, male voices/mutterings (plural), lip gloss and screwdriver in the grass. I wonder if this clue was explained.

 

[Newthoughts]

I've been following this case on Websleuths since the begining and remember another discussed scenario well. 12.30 Heathcote street - woman's screaming, male voices/mutterings (plural), lip gloss and screwdriver in the grass. I wonder if this clue was explained.

Lip gloss and screwdriver were at the corner of Beresford - where PR goes before stalking Libby. Police said they were from a different crime

The other screams were probably nothing to with this case. The relevant screams in the park were supported as being heard by two other witnesses whose windows were open, by the CCTV evidence of him at the park and of the witness seeing him leave the park. Along with where Libby was eventually found

 

[mrazda71]

I've been following this case on Websleuths since the begining and remember another discussed scenario well. 12.30 Heathcote street - woman's screaming, male voices/mutterings (plural), lip gloss and screwdriver in the grass. I wonder if this clue was explained.

I think if memory serves me well, the lip gloss was not Libbys and the screwdriver was 'not part of the current investigation'.

Anyone else remember the same?

 

[Newthoughts]

No

I think if memory serves me well, the lip gloss was not Libbys and the screwdriver was 'not part of the current investigation'.

Anyone else remember the same?

Yes that is what I remember. Unrelated but very reassuring to see the public were alert to everything afterwards. Otherwise they might not have got the condom evidence from his later masturbation.

I have to admit that him doing that after another visit to the park and another trawl of the student area makes my blood run cold.

 

[mrazda71]

Yes @Newthoughts he's definitely in the same vein as Jesse Kempson isn't he.

 

[Mommysleuth11]

Wasn't PR re arrested August 20/21(?) 2019 in regards to Libbys rape and Murder, but not charged until October? I acknowledge that there was no burden of timing as he was already safely locked away for a significant period, but that does seem like a long time to actually charge. Usually rearrest and further questioning of that type is when all the investigations have provided the evidence needed and the rape charge shows they had forensic results back. I do agree with the poster who said it suggests some back and forth between CPS and police in terms of getting those charges authorised. MOO.

 

[mrjitty]

So could the defence have requested it to be considered as manslaughter?

They could indicate that in the pretrial discussion, but the UK does not have plea bargaining.

Specifically in this case, the accused would really have to present evidence it was manslaughter.

But that isn't his version - so I really think manslaughter is not at issue in this trial.

 

[Newthoughts]

Wasn't PR re arrested August 20/21(?) 2019 in regards to Libbys rape and Murder, but not charged until October? I acknowledge that there was no burden of timing as he was already safely locked away for a significant period, but that does seem like a long time to actually charge. Usually rearrest and further questioning of that type is when all the investigations have provided the evidence needed and the rape charge shows they had forensic results back. I do agree with the poster who said it suggests some back and forth between CPS and police in terms of getting those charges authorised. MOO.

I don't have much experience in this so in what way does it suggest that? Genuine question as I would have assumed a good period of time to get everything.

 

[Dotta]

Yes @Newthoughts he's definitely in the same vein as Jesse Kempson isn't he.

But Kempson's name was kept hidden from the public and the jury of his following trials as not to prejudice the jury. When here PR name and horrible nickname are splashed in every tabloid and crimes he is already sentenced for presented during this trial. Kempson was treated in kid gloves it seems.

 

[Niner]

Wasn't PR re arrested August 20/21(?) 2019 in regards to Libbys rape and Murder, but not charged until October? I acknowledge that there was no burden of timing as he was already safely locked away for a significant period, but that does seem like a long time to actually charge. Usually rearrest and further questioning of that type is when all the investigations have provided the evidence needed and the rape charge shows they had forensic results back. I do agree with the poster who said it suggests some back and forth between CPS and police in terms of getting those charges authorised. MOO.

from my notes:

- *Pawel P. Relowicz (24/now 25) arrested (Feb. 6, 2019 on suspicion of abduction) officially charged (Oct. 30, 2019) with murder & rape.
and
Was originally charged (18/3/19 & 10/5/19) with 5 counts of burglary, 4 counts of voyeurism, 3 counts of outraging public decency & 1 count of receiving stolen goods. On Aug. 12, 2019 plead guilty to 9 charges including voyeurism (4 counts), outraging public decency (2 counts) & burglary (3 counts). Relowicz jailed for eight & a half years.

 

[Cherwell]

But Kempson's name was kept hidden from the public and the jury of his following trials as not to prejudice the jury. When here PR name and horrible nickname are splashed in every tabloid and crimes he is already sentenced for presented during this trial. Kempson was treated in kid gloves it seems.

Sorry, what "horrible nickname"? I'm not aware of one.

As for Kempson, his name wasn't disclosed even after he was found guilty of Grace's murder. This was because he had another trial pending, for rape. They did not want to give him any reason to claim that the jury might have been prejudiced, nor any grounds to claim he had not had a fair trial.

Normally in UK trials a defendant's previous convictions aren't disclosed to the jury for similar reasons. However in this case an exception has been made because his earlier crimes are considered to be material to this charge. Mr Jitty explained this earlier.

 

[mrazda71]

But Kempson's name was kept hidden from the public and the jury of his following trials as not to prejudice the jury. When here PR name and horrible nickname are splashed in every tabloid and crimes he is already sentenced for presented during this trial. Kempson was treated in kid gloves it seems.

And still found guilty ...

 

[Ruthbullock]

They could indicate that in the pretrial discussion, but the UK does not have plea bargaining.

Specifically in this case, the accused would really have to present evidence it was manslaughter.

But that isn't his version - so I really think manslaughter is not at issue in this trial.

Thank you for explaining