UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #22

[CoverMeCagney]

He is a victim of his own lies because if he had admitted the rape in the first place then the jury would be more inclined to believe that he left her alive at Oak Road. The fact that he has repeatedly changed his story to fit in with the evidence has done him no favours.

I would have loved to have seen his reaction when Libby's body was found because he must never have expected that.

Even if he’d admitted to sex (but not rape) in the first place. If he’d said “yeah I met that girl, she didn’t seem that drunk, we had sex then she said she lived nearby and didn’t need a lift home, so I left her on Beresford Road and drove back to my house ” we’d be looking at a very different scenario now.

 

[Skigh]

I don't want to argue on the forum. I understood your post as such - Defence is bad, whatever they say is not worthwile - so why bother then listening to PR's lawyers. Maybe I understood wrongly your words. I think Defence is vital in trials and not to be treated in condescending way. I hope you understand that I didn't want to be offensive.

Every person on here would agree the defence is vital in a trial.
A trial could not take part without the defence.
What some people are saying is that given all we have heard , in their opinion, the prosecution has a stronger case than the defence.
No one is saying the defence barrister is bad ,just he has a difficult task explaining all PR's lies.

 

[LastSeenWearing]

Hello, I just had a few thoughts about this;

IF she was left outside of the park, does she under her own steam, uncoordinated walk through a gate, which by the looks of it on Google Maps is pretty sheltered, away from the brighter lights of a residential area, into a "dimly" park and walk all the way through said park and into the river with enough force to avoid banks/mud/reeds?

I guess IF she was left in the park, would the yeast factory be lit up at night, she might have got confused and walked towards that.

If there is CCTV of them both entering the park, as the prosecution states, and all CCTV has been shown in court, yet PR is still peddling his story of them NOT entering at all, that's a bit of a strange one IMO

It doesn't look like there is any CCTV of Libby and PR actually entering the park or surely the prosecution would have mentioned it today in their summing up to prove beyond doubt that PR did enter the park. So PR either knew the prosecution had no CCTV of him actually entering the park so stuck to his story that he did not enter or it was

Hello, I just had a few thoughts about this;

IF she was left outside of the park, does she under her own steam, uncoordinated walk through a gate, which by the looks of it on Google Maps is pretty sheltered, away from the brighter lights of a residential area, into a "dimly" park and walk all the way through said park and into the river with enough force to avoid banks/mud/reeds?

I guess IF she was left in the park, would the yeast factory be lit up at night, she might have got confused and walked towards that.

If there is CCTV of them both entering the park, as the prosecution states, and all CCTV has been shown in court, yet PR is still peddling his story of them NOT entering at all, that's a bit of a strange one IMO

It looks like there is no CCTV of Libby and PR actually entering or being in the park or I am sure the prosecution would have used it today. PR must have known there was no CCTV footage available so been confident he could keep to his story of never entering the park due to a lack of CCTV at the park entrance or in the park. So the only actual sighting in the park is the man SA witnessed leaving quickly. This man was not seen on CCTV unfortunately for absolute identification. I was hoping there would be CCTV footage provided today from the park.

 

[jenniemoralis]

Apologies as I haven't fully caught up and so far haven't read any of todays evidence.

I again see the issue of the River Hull and its tides/currents coming up once more.
This blog i found speaks clearly of the currents and effects on a small(ish) boat, attempting to navigate the river from Beverley to the Humber and beyond. There are images (the ones between Ennerdale and Stoneferry bridges) are of the relevant area and clearly show a low water level with parts of the bank exposed. I hope this finally settles once and for all for those in any doubt that it IS indeed tidal and the water level DOES change.
Besides that the info on the currents is pretty useful to help imagine quite how strong and scary they are even to someone apparently used to navigating waterways.

NB Holderness: Hull helter skelter.

Tidal levels at this location in the last 5 days

 

[LastSeenWearing]

The prosecution today stated that they believe the reason for PR's third visit to ORPF was to clear things up and get rid of any evidence and may well have been when they believe PR put Libby in the river. By saying this are they trying to show that the 7.5 minutes would have been enough time for rape and murder and the 4 mins return journey to put her in the river so everything did not need to have been completed within the tight 7.5 minute second visit?

 

[Cherwell]

I don't want to argue on the forum. I understood your post as such - Defence is bad, whatever they say is not worthwile - so why bother then listening to PR's lawyers. Maybe I understood wrongly your words. I think Defence is vital in trials and not to be treated in condescending way. I hope you understand that I didn't want to be offensive.

I think there is some confusion over the word "defence". It can mean two things in a trial.
First, there is the defendant's version of what happened.
Second, there is the team of lawyers who are presenting the case for the defence. We sometimes refer to them as "the defence", just as we talk about "the prosecution", meaning the lawyers who are acting for the prosecution case.

So we can say that PR's defence is bad, in that he has told too many lies for his version to be believable.
That doesn't mean that his defence lawyers are bad, just that in defending PR they have been given a very difficult task, if not an impossible one.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Perfectly explained, Cherwell!

 

[tedtink]

It doesn't look like there is any CCTV of Libby and PR actually entering the park or surely the prosecution would have mentioned it today in their summing up to prove beyond doubt that PR did enter the park. So PR either knew the prosecution had no CCTV of him actually entering the park so stuck to his story that he did not enter or it was

It looks like there is no CCTV of Libby and PR actually entering or being in the park or I am sure the prosecution would have used it today. PR must have known there was no CCTV footage available so been confident he could keep to his story of never entering the park due to a lack of CCTV at the park entrance or in the park. So the only actual sighting in the park is the man SA witnessed leaving quickly. This man was not seen on CCTV unfortunately for absolute identification. I was hoping there would be CCTV footage provided today from the park.

I agree.
He told Police

“I drove away and she walked on to the pavement here [on Beresford Avenue] and started to walk normally and that was it.
“You can have a look at the camera footage. I know nothing more about that. I’ve never seen her since."

Relowicz told police: “I went home. I don’t know the time you will be able to check on the cameras'

IMO This is someone who knew there was no CCTV at the park - it's almost taunting the Police, like saying, I've done nothing - you prove it!

Trial updates as chilling CCTV 'shows Pawel Relowicz meeting Libby'

 

[LastSeenWearing]

I have just had a thought about the man witnessed by SA leaving the park hurriedly after the last screams. Where did this man go when leaving the park? If he was on foot CCTV cameras must have picked him up on one of the roads leading from the entrance to the park. Nothing was mentioned of any sightings. If he got into a car the car would be seen leaving. If the only car seen leaving from outside the park was PRs then unless the observed man vanished into thin air unseen on any CCTV the man must have got into PRs car and therefore be PR!

 

[tedtink]

I have just had a thought about the man witnessed by SA leaving the park hurriedly after the last screams. Where did this man go when leaving the park? If he was on foot CCTV cameras must have picked him up on one of the roads leading from the entrance to the park. Nothing was mentioned of any sightings. If he got into a car the car would be seen leaving. If the only car seen leaving from outside the park was PRs then unless the observed man vanished into thin air unseen on any CCTV the man must have got into PRs car and therefore be PR!

Possibly those people came forward earlier or were ID'd and were ruled out?
Maybe that evidence wasn't reported online during the Court evidence updates.

 

[Steve2021]

I am a bit surprised neither side introduced any expert evidence on or even questioned PR himself as to his athletic capabilities and achievements. This would assist in determining what he personally, rather than persons in general, could accomplish in the 7.5 minutes on the particular topography and conditions etc. Maybe they both decided it too risky to their case to do so? If I'd been one of the advocates I'm sure I'd have considered it.

From the various CCTV he looks to me pretty powerfully built and to be more a marcher than dawdler as a walker but we have no information on his running potential.

Whoever it was who spotted a wet knee, if this is correct, very good spot, and I think out of all the things we've discussed that's the only one I can think that maybe the prosecution have failed to introduce. Inevitably PR would have found an explanation for it but it would have been worth putting it to him.

 

[Steve2021]

I'd also add that in addition to not pretending consensual sex took place early because of the high likelihood she'd be found with his DNA - admitting to it would have saved him taking the stand.

As it was he presented a gift to the prosecution. That would have been far better for him as an early statement to the police.

As it is he had to take the stand to explain the evidence which was a car crash for him.

And his early failure to mention it makes it look like he was very sure that evidence wouldn't be found

I now understand the part of the caution that says 'it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something you later rely on in court' .

I think he's thought about his options and decided to gamble and go for broke by defending both charges, knowing that the story he was giving was such that if rejected on the rape would leave him with much less wriggle room for defending the murder, quite possibly against his legal advice. I think he's thinking if I go down for rape I might as well go down for murder too, my only hope is to get off the rape as if I don't I could be getting a life sentence anyway.

 

[Offaly]

I think the petrol station footage was there to show the jury his strange cuffed jeans and shoes so that they when they saw the spidercam footage they'd recognise it as him. So I think those are the clothes he would have worn to attack Libby.

He says when he went home he washed those and had a bath. I think he says he washed them cos he didn't want his wife to know he'd cheated. I think forensics said they smelt of washing powder bug that they'd identified grass stains

So the later footage is what he's changed into for his second outing to the park

I think timescales, changes of clothes, etc are all irrelevant now. The prosecution has presented its case and I feel a verdict of guilty of rape and murder is very likely. We'll never know exactly how he used the time of visit two and three to the park but we know from the evidence he raped Libby and she ended up dead in the river Hull due to his actions of abduction and violent rape and he was confident noone was going to come looking for him, even on the night it happened. He was so confident (cos he knew she was dead) that he went out again that night and almost apprehended another victim. No doubt guilty of both charges and details of clothes changes, jeans, wet knees, time limitations are not important anymore.

 

[Steve2021]

I'm also surprised there's been no questioning of the police evidence over whether the persons on the Croda CCTV were identified, or whether any other people were spotted in the vicinity and if so were they eliminated.

Also we didn't read in the reporting the degree if any to which SA was challenged over the man he saw.

Maybe both sides were concerned it might damage their case so chose not to?

 

[Cherwell]

I have just had a thought about the man witnessed by SA leaving the park hurriedly after the last screams. Where did this man go when leaving the park? If he was on foot CCTV cameras must have picked him up on one of the roads leading from the entrance to the park. Nothing was mentioned of any sightings. If he got into a car the car would be seen leaving. If the only car seen leaving from outside the park was PRs then unless the observed man vanished into thin air unseen on any CCTV the man must have got into PRs car and therefore be PR!

There's only one possibility that I can think of, a remote one, and that is that he hopped over the fence into the tenfoot and went into one of the Claremont Avenue houses by the back gate. It's difficult to come up with a reason why a resident might have been coming through the park at that time, though, as it doesn't lead anywhere but the river.

 

[Dotta]

I think timescales, changes of clothes, etc are all irrelevant now. The prosecution has presented its case and I feel a verdict of guilty of rape and murder is very likely. We'll never know exactly how he used the time of visit two and three to the park but we know from the evidence he raped Libby and she ended up dead in the river Hull due to his actions of abduction and violent rape and he was confident noone was going to come looking for him, even on the night it happened. He was so confident (cos he knew she was dead) that he went out again that night and almost apprehended another victim. No doubt guilty of both charges and details of clothes changes, jeans, wet knees, time limitations are not important anymore.

Everything is important in any criminal case. Especially time frames. It is good to to listen to both sides before giving an ultimate verdict.

 

[Steve2021]

I think timescales, changes of clothes, etc are all irrelevant now. The prosecution has presented its case and I feel a verdict of guilty of rape and murder is very likely. We'll never know exactly how he used the time of visit two and three to the park but we know from the evidence he raped Libby and she ended up dead in the river Hull due to his actions of abduction and violent rape and he was confident noone was going to come looking for him, even on the night it happened. He was so confident (cos he knew she was dead) that he went out again that night and almost apprehended another victim. No doubt guilty of both charges and details of clothes changes, jeans, wet knees, time limitations are not important anymore.

Spot on, whether he murdered Libby or not there will be no tears lost over him.

However if someone else killed her I hope he is acquitted and the other person caught and convicted. My main hope for her family would be that he is found guilty and a ton of stuff we haven't come across comes out that would make any doubter believe it was right.

 

[Offaly]

Everything is important in any criminal case. Especially time frames. It is good to to listen to both sides before giving an ultimate verdict.

I meant there's no point now going over old ground re clothes and arguing over timescales, we'll never know unless PR confesses all which is unlikely IMO.

 

[JusticeDT]

Thanks jamjim for the updates today.

 

[Tortoise]

Would he have expected her body not to be discovered in the river?

That's quite the distance over a meandering stretch and through the city, before it opens into the Humber.