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

[JosieJo]

It seems unusual to have forensic evidence of another trial ?

 

[LucyRocket]

Hugging a wall - Google Search

@LucyRocket this is what I imagine it is. I think he did this to avoid being seen by either libby or someone else . Its the comment about him standing facing the wall after attacking libby that im confused about. What the hell was he doing?!

Putting himself in time out?

 

[catgreen]

I just wondered why? ...generally (most anyway) posters on websleuths are interested in crime , court , evidence etc and have no real investigation in the defendant? Not really comfortable discussing other posters but I just felt uncomfortable with that post and wanted to try and understand it.
Having said that I'm not going to comment on it further fearing thread disruption...only to say I share a lot of the views ..personally I have no interest in the defendant at all only the crime ...I have deep sympathy for libby and her family but have no emotional investment in her personally
My interest is crime

I think it would be dishonest to say, as I followed the evidence, that I was completely detached - most of us develop feelings about the crime, the victim, the perpetrator without knowing them, the same as if we followed a story in the paper?

 

[catgreen]

I just wondered why? ...generally (most anyway) posters on websleuths are interested in crime , court , evidence etc and have no real investigation in the defendant? Not really comfortable discussing other posters but I just felt uncomfortable with that post and wanted to try and understand it.
Having said that I'm not going to comment on it further fearing thread disruption...only to say I share a lot of the views ..personally I have no interest in the defendant at all only the crime ...I have deep sympathy for libby and her family but have no emotional investment in her personally
My interest is crime

I think it would be dishonest to say, as I followed the evidence, that I was completely detached - most of us develop feelings about the crime, the victim, the perpetrator without knowing them, the same as if we followed a story in the paper?

 

[JosieJo]

Putting himself in time out?

Interesting thought

 

[Vera_dci]

15:03
Full DNA profile found
Semen staining was also found on the crotch region of one of the pairs of underwear from Ventnor Street, which showed a DNA profile of Relowicz as a “dominant contributor” as well as another male.

In another pair, a chemical in saliva was found in the crotch, showing a full DNA profile for Relowicz.

Libby Squire trial live: Expert on her chances of surviving in river

Another male!!! Im hoping this was the owners partner/acquaintance. Im still questioning why he had two Halloween masks in his car boot with his other trophies.

 

[mrazda71]

Why do you feel the poster wants to believe he is not guilty? Most posters on websleuths are interest in crime and criminal process ...and peoples opinions vary?

I've said the same thing many times over, other posters have said the same thing many times over.

I'm struggling to come up with a way to say it in a way that sinks in or makes sense.

Pathologist - Libby did not drown.

Some posters - but how do we know PR put Libby in water?

Me - because Dead, dying or unconscious people cannot walk or crawl to get themselves in the water.

Some posters - maybe she wasn't dead or unconscious so able to get to the water?

Me - but if she was alive, conscious or unconscious she would have been breathing - if you are in a river AND breathing and eventually end up dead - you will show signs of drowning - you will have water in your lungs and or stomach = signs of drowning - Pathologist - Libby did not drown

And round and round again.

I'm absolutely NOT saying that you or anyone can't have an opinion or a theory that differs from mine orcany other but, if you put it here and it doesn't make sense or someone disagrees then I and other posters will be absolutely valid in politely explaining to you why we disagree.

@wilkela I have empathy for you because you appear to not understand or not want to accept that Pawel IS responsible for Libby being dead.

If you took a fish out of water and put it on the floor and walked away - it would die and you would be at fault even though you walked away and didn't plan to kill it or didn't kill it with your hands - it can't get itself back into the water- it's still dead and it's still your doing.

 

[LucyRocket]

I'd LOVE to hear what his wife would say about him

 

[Winterbells]

I've said the same thing many times over, other posters have said the sane thing many times over.

I'm struggling to come up with a way to say it in a way that sinks in.

Pathologist - Libby did not drown.

Some posters - but how do we know PR put Libby in water?

Me - because Dead, dying or unconscious people cannot walk or crawl to get themselves in the water.

Some posters - maybe she wasn't dead or unconscious so able to get to the water?

Me - but if she was alive, conscious or unconscious she would have been breathing - if you are in a river AND breathing and eventually end up dead - you will show signs of drowning - you will have water in your lungs and or stomach = signs of drowning - Pathologist - Libby did not drown

And round and round again.

I'm absolutely NOT saying that you or anyone can't have an opinion or a theory that differs from mine orcany other but, if you put it here and it doesn't make sense or someone disagrees then I and other posters will be absolutely valid in politely explaining to you why we disagree.

@wilkela I have empathy for you because you appear to not understand or not want to accept that Pawel IS responsible for Libby being dead.

If you took a fish out of water and put it on the floor and walked away - it would die and you would be at fault even though you walked away and didn't plan to kill it or didn't kill it with your hands - it's still dead and it's still your doing.

But without evidence that PR killed Libby and then put her in the water, how can a jury convict him of murder?

 

[JosieJo]

I've said the same thing many times over, other posters have said the sane thing many times over.

I'm struggling to come up with a way to say it in a way that sinks in.

Pathologist - Libby did not drown.

Some posters - but how do we know PR put Libby in water?

Me - because Dead, dying or unconscious people cannot walk or crawl to get themselves in the water.

Some posters - maybe she wasn't dead or unconscious so able to get to the water?

Me - but if she was alive, conscious or unconscious she would have been breathing - if you are in a river AND breathing and eventually end up dead - you will show signs of drowning - you will have water in your lungs and or stomach = signs of drowning - Pathologist - Libby did not drown

And round and round again.

I'm absolutely NOT saying that you or anyone can't have an opinion or a theory that differs from mine orcany other but, if you put it here and it doesn't make sense or someone disagrees then I and other posters will be absolutely valid in politely explaining to you why we disagree.

@wilkela I have empathy for you because you appear to not understand or not want to accept that Pawel IS responsible for Libby being dead.

If you took a fish out of water and put it on the floor and walked away - it would die and you would be at fault even though you walked away and didn't plan to kill it or didn't kill it with your hands - it's still dead and it's still your doing.

I dont think many people are suggesting that he is not responsible for her death or even that the very likely outcome of this trial will be guilty...but there are some individuals who have "some" problems around evidence..the meer fact we haven't even heard defence yet sets alarm bells to me on anyone who feels they have to "go round and round" again because they do not find it clear cut "yet"
Debate and people picking at your thoughts is great ..part of the course ...condescending comments and "empathy" imo are not

 

[Vera_dci]

I'm going put this out there ( feel free to dispute) from the very start of this case ive questioned if PR acted alone. I know he did with previous crimes to our knowledge BUT police released two cctv videos early on and a cyclist appeared in both ( spider & croda). Ive not heard of cyclist coming forward?

 

[JosieJo]

I'd LOVE to hear what his wife would say about him

Yes me too

 

[HongKongPhooey]

15:03
Full DNA profile found
Semen staining was also found on the crotch region of one of the pairs of underwear from Ventnor Street, which showed a DNA profile of Relowicz as a “dominant contributor” as well as another male.

In another pair, a chemical in saliva was found in the crotch, showing a full DNA profile for Relowicz.

Libby Squire trial live: Expert on her chances of surviving in river

 

[JosieJo]

I'm surprised such detailed forensics from a completely different case which he has already been found guilty of has been allowed? Will have a profound effect on the jury

 

[Newthoughts]

I don't think that the possibilites one offers are necessarily an indication of what one wants to believe. They certainly aren't in my case, anyway.

I think most of us are working purely on the probabilities suggested by the evidence. And the evidence so far is pretty damning.

 

[Winterbells]

Let me be clear, I believe he's guilty on all counts. But there's no evidence that he's responsible for Libby's death. There's evidence that he was with her before she died and that his semen entered her body at some point, but he is surely going to argue, through his counsel, that she left him, alive and on foot and that he returned later because he was concerned about her and she wasn't around. How she ended up dead and in the river is a mystery to PR.

 

[JusticeDT]

I'd LOVE to hear what his wife would say about him

Me too.

 

[JosieJo]

Let me be clear, I believe he's guilty on all counts. But there's no evidence that he's responsible for Libby's death. There's evidence that he was with her before she died and that his semen entered her body at some point, but he is surely going to argue, through his counsel, that she left him, alive and on foot and that he returned later because he was concerned about her and she wasn't around. How she ended up dead and in the river is a mystery to PR.

Absolutely

 

[HongKongPhooey]

I'm surprised such detailed forensics from a completely different case which he has already been found guilty of has been allowed? Will have a profound effect on the jury

Thank goodness the freako left his trophies in his boot to play with later so they could link them up

 

[mrazda71]

I dont think many people are suggesting that he is not responsible for her death or even that the very likely outcome of this trial will be guilty...but there are some individuals who have "some" problems around evidence..the meer fact we haven't even heard defence yet sets alarm bells to me on anyone who feels they have to "go round and round" again because they do not find it clear cut "yet"
Debate and people picking at your thoughts is great ..part of the course ...condescending comments and "empathy" imo are not

My 'Empathy' was NOT me being condescending to Wilkela, I was trying to explain in a way that I hoped they would understand.