UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #23

[mrjitty]

Question re murder vs manslaughter in this particular case:

[apologies for asking here rather than trying to research myself; I'm not being lazy, I just have a very poor internet connection at the moment with most sites timing out, so it's quicker to ask you knowledgeable lot in one post!]

What scenario might the jury have in mind if they were to find for manslaughter not murder?

My understanding thus far is as follows, but I feel like I'm missing something:

1. Libby dies during the course of the rape or as a direct result of the rape = obviously murder

2. Libby dies having fallen into the river while actively trying to escape PR = murder due to the chain of events (I used to think this would have been manslaughter, but thanks to the links/input on this thread I now understand differently)

This might actually be manslaughter, as perhaps he didn't intend to kill her, didn't intend any GBH, and didn't foresee her death - The distinction can get a bit technical, as you can still get a steep sentence for manslaughter

3. Libby is left alive by PR, distressed or unconscious, very close to the river but not heading towards it (eg sobbing on the ground, I know it's a horrible image, sorry) - so she is not actively trying to escape - but she then stumbles around in the dark after he has gone. Is that where the manslaughter would come in? That he caused her death due to his reckless and criminal actions, but not directly enough to be murder?

I posted before that this would be a difficult question. I think if he raped her, incapacitated her, and left her to die on the ground, that would be manslaughter. Same if he chased her into the river. But if she blunders into the river much later after she left? Borderline IMO.

4. Libby is left alive by PR *outside the park* and then for whatever reason she stumbles into the river some distance away - presumably this would be not guilty, as it's stretching the chain of events too far, no?

Yes IMO.

If I'm wrong that something like #3 would be manslaughter, can someone explain better?
If that's roughly right, then I'm stuck on how the jury could consider manslaughter, because they (and we) cannot possibly know that #3 happened as opposed to #2?

I think this is where the trial tactics kick in.

The prosecution are all in on murder. The defence are all in on not guilty. So no one is alleging manslaughter - so that makes it hard for the jury to reach that verdict unless the judge weighs in on it.

In practice the prosecution are saying if it wasn't murder, then it is all too uncertain to say what it was.

[For absence of doubt: I like probably everyone here hold PR *morally* responsible for Libby's death, but based on the little we've seen from court, I'm not necessarily convinced that murder has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hence why I'm interested in what the jury would need to believe in order to find for manslaughter. ]

In this respect it is a bit of a strange case, where he certainly caused her death but might walk.

 

[tedtink]

I wonder if PR has British citizenship - after so many years in UK do the authorities grant it? If he is deported to Poland he will certainly be put on sexual offender list and under constant supervision. His life as a pervert as he knew it will definitely end.

In order to stay in UK post Brexit he would have needed apply the for EU settlement scheme OR apply for citizenship.
The Settlement Scheme runs until the end June this year I think.
I don't know PR's status, but my friends, as did a lot of people, got themselves sorted out a few years ago. Some of my friends got citizenship because they'd married British partners, others just went for 'settlement', so they could move back if they wanted to.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Not 12.15, but I don't think we can categorically state that there was no scream before that. It could be that SA was awoken by a scream but wasn't consciously aware of it.

Possibly very true- but again SA stated that it was normal to hear screams like that, so (and I know it wasn’t you that posted it) we can’t assume PR didn’t hear any screams just because he didn’t report them, and as far as we know no one asked him if he heard the same screams as SA (because if he said yes he did- they have no case)

 

[JosieJo]

What do you think happened Josie? If you care to share ofc

I vary from day to day ...honestly my opinion is i don't know .. I do think its possible he attacked her in the park but him denying not taking her even slightly into the park I can't grasp
Obviously that hasn't been entered in court so the jury can't consider it
And from being into the park I am equally torn between him killing her and her accidentally falling into the river

 

[elysian2]

Thank you very much mrjitty for answering my questions re murder/manslaughter. I'm still a bit confused because I thought we had (collectively) established that death while directly escaping from an unlawful attack would be murder due to the chain of causation - but I guess it's a moot point since we'll never know exactly what happened.

The prosecution are all in on murder. The defence are all in on not guilty. So no one is alleging manslaughter - so that makes it hard for the jury to reach that verdict unless the judge weighs in on it.

One of the reason I was asking is that I recall it being posted somewhere early on in the trail that a jury member had asked about manslaughter. I can't now find that quote, but it was during the first day or two of the trial and was reported as an explanation for a short delay. If that is the case, that a juror had asked, then it may already be in their minds, so I would hope that the judge would provide direction on that. I guess we'll know tomorrow.

 

[ChiCubs2016]

I have certainly considered Libby’s behavior that evening. I watched the CCTV footage of her stumbling along the road. I heard witness describe how she sat on the ground, cried and screamed. However I do not think this suggest she stumbled herself into the river. IMO, I do not think it is probable that Libby wondered into a dark park as opposed to a residential street. She seemed to stay in a well-lit area prior to being picked up by PR. When she was raped, I see her trying to find help, not running in a river. As much as Libby was agitated and argumentative I do believe she wanted help. I think people were having trouble understanding her and she got upset and agitated. She was drunk, incoherent. I am sure all the people who were not able to help feel terrible for not calling for help. But the fact remains none of them took her to a dark park, raped her and IMO put her in the river. PR told one lie after another including when he testified in court. Can we believe a person who swears to his testimony just because he had suddenly admitted that his last 4 stories were lies? I can’t. He said he went back to the park to make sure she was okay, but if he was really concerned he never would have taken her to the park in the first place. He never would have stalked, manipulated or raped her. Like the prosecutor said he was not trying to be a good samaritan. He saw an opportunity, he took it and then he took measures to make sure he was would not be caught. Thankfully Libby was found and thankfully DNA was preserved. MOO

 

[C.greek]

Possibly very true- but again SA stated that it was normal to hear screams like that, so (and I know it wasn’t you that posted it) we can’t assume PR didn’t hear any screams just because he didn’t report them, and as far as we know no one asked him if he heard the same screams as SA (because if he said yes he did- they have no case)

PR embellished his 5th story with Libby screaming at him as he was leaving in the car so he did indeed mention the screams

 

[Newthoughts]

I'm really sorry but I don't understand the point you are making in relation to how you have quoted me.

I understand that an innocent young woman lost her life and that this is a very emotive case but I don't think that should mean all of the information before us should be discounted if it doesn't fit the narrative you are looking for.

I am new to this forum but I have tried to understand the rules and be polite and considered with my points and my opinion is formed on all of the evidence I have seen and being devils advocate over it all. That does not in my mind, translate to suggesting that PRs behaviour was not appalling or that he did not choose the path he chose. Just that it cannot be ignored that Libby's behaviour that evening was that of a drunk, distressed woman who was not acting in a rational manner and that could have led to an end that did not include being murdered by PR.

The biggest piece of evidence from witnesses and experts was that Libby could barely walk without falling over. She'd fallen over a few times by the time she was intercepted by PR. Her knees were bleeding. She would find it difficult to run away. She would be uncoordinated.

The second really obvious piece of evidence is that she was incredibly distressed and wanted to go home

Despite those huge pieces of evidence she is supposed to leave a residential area to go into a dark park and negotiate the tricky terrain of that park. To clamber up the banks before that river. Then get down thru weeds and mud to get into a river far enough to be swept away?

That is really important information given to the court by witnesses and experts and I really apologise if I'm misreading this but it does appear to be being either disregarded or minimised.

 

[Steve2021]

There was no screaming at 12.15- he awoke to a text at 12.14 and a minute or two later he heard a scream (one). He then heard 30 seconds to a minute later another scream and this continues intermittently (so not every minute or so) for the next four to seven minutes. Five minutes after 12.14 PR was in his car and driving away. Most people making a statement about screaming may put a word to describe length of time, but SA was very specific with his timings., he had to correct the prosecution when they questioned him- that says a lot about his confidence in his statement (SA is adamant it is accurate timings, which do not coincide with PR still being there)
ETA: potentially PR missed two screams spread a minute to so apart (which as was also stated by the same witness, quite common in that area)- even SA didn’t think anything of it until days after LS was reported missing.

That is very interesting. The reports I read of his evidence were much less detailed than the one you must have seen. Can you link to it. So he's saying the 1st scream he heard was at 12.15 or 12.16. PR was definitely about then, either in the park or road. So how do you interpret this?

Was it Libby screaming? If we conclude it was presumably we would conclude PR had been in the park and raped her in there, otherwise how can she possibly got there by that time. In which case we naturally would wonder why had he lied about going in the park, what more was he trying to hide, and that might make us more suspicious about where and in what condition he'd left her.

Moreso, if by 12.16 Libby could get to the far end of the park near the river where the screams were heard from, PR could certainly have got there and back in the 12.11-12.19 time window which has been so contentious.

 

[Newthoughts]

In order to stay in UK post Brexit he would have needed apply the for EU settlement scheme OR apply for citizenship.
The Settlement Scheme runs until the end June this year I think.
I don't know PR's status, but my friends, as did a lot of people, got themselves sorted out a few years ago. Some of my friends got citizenship because they'd married British partners, others just went for 'settlement', so they could move back if they wanted to.

All my EU friends have got settlement status. I don't know about PR. I'm not sure what would happen after his release. Before brexit he could be deported on release. Not so sure what happens now. But I'm pretty sure he'll offend again wherever he is

 

[Ruthbullock]

That is very interesting. The reports I read of his evidence were much less detailed than the one you must have seen. Can you link to it. So he's saying the 1st scream he heard was at 12.15 or 12.16. PR was definitely about then, either in the park or road. So how do you interpret this?

Was it Libby screaming? If we conclude it was presumably we would conclude PR had been in the park and raped her in there, otherwise how can she possibly got there by that time. In which case we naturally would wonder why had he lied about going in the park, what more was he trying to hide, and that might make us more suspicious about where and in what condition he'd left her.

Moreso, if by 12.16 Libby could get to the far end of the park near the river where the screams were heard from, PR could certainly have got there and back in the 12.11-12.19 time window which has been so contentious.

The link has been shared repeatedly it’s from Hull live and various other news sources. This one is from the mirror
Man heard screams 'lasting up to seven minutes' on night Libby Squire 'murdered'
I’m going to ignore the fact that you are asking me to assume it’s LS ( as a jury don’t have to and we have not been shown any proof that it was her)and then discuss that point.
ETA I responded to it in my post that you replied to- PR heard one or two screams as did SAs testimony, he then drive away as per the CCTV. SA the heard several more individual screams, but PR was no longer there so wouldn’t have heard them.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Can anyone put their hands on original reports of what Sam A saw and heard that night? Iirc it was reported (way back when) that he said the screams were “moving” but I don’t think that’s what was said in court? It’s quite possible I’m getting confused though.

 

[Steve2021]

The link has been shared repeatedly it’s from Hull live and various other news sources. This one is from the mirror
Man heard screams 'lasting up to seven minutes' on night Libby Squire 'murdered'
I’m going to ignore the fact that you are asking me to assume it’s LS ( as a jury don’t have to and we have not been shown any proof that it was her)and then discuss that point.
ETA I responded to it in my post that you replied to- PR heard one or two screams as did SAs testimony, he then drive away as per the CCTV. SA the heard several more individual screams, but PR was no longer there so wouldn’t have heard them.

Yes I've seen that reporting but I haven't (and still haven't) seen the bits you mention about SA correcting the prosecutor, or being asked if he was adamant. I'm not disputing you have or that it's not significantl but it isn't mentioned in a number of the reports.

 

[JosieJo]

The biggest piece of evidence from witnesses and experts was that Libby could barely walk without falling over. She'd fallen over a few times by the time she was intercepted by PR. Her knees were bleeding. She would find it difficult to run away. She would be uncoordinated.

The second really obvious piece of evidence is that she was incredibly distressed and wanted to go home

Despite those huge pieces of evidence she is supposed to leave a residential area to go into a dark park and negotiate the tricky terrain of that park. To clamber up the banks before that river. Then get down thru weeds and mud to get into a river far enough to be swept away?

That is really important information given to the court by witnesses and experts and I really apologise if I'm misreading this but it does appear to be being either disregarded or minimised.

To me the fact that her previous decisions were not rational actually supports the possibility of going into the park ...imo by this point she may even have been more unwell and confused

The fact that she had hours to get to the river edge..mitigates her ability to eventually end up there ...even stumbling and falling etc ...and she may have walked up the slope with the path because once so far into the park that would be heading towards the distant light
There are definitely small areas where the grass drops straight into the water near the slope ..no reeds etc

So imo not impossible

Obviously here im not talking about fitting anything around screams etc purely the possibility of her entering the park and eventually reaching the river

 

[JosieJo]

Can anyone put their hands on original reports of what Sam A saw and heard that night? Iirc it was reported (way back when) that he said the screams were “moving” but I don’t think that’s what was said in court? It’s quite possible I’m getting confused though.

"Libby Squire disappearance: 'Eerie' screaming heard as student vanishes | UK | News | Express.co.uk" Libby Squire disappearance: 'Eerie' screaming heard as student vanishes | UK | News | Express.co.uk

 

[ChiCubs2016]

Possibly very true- but again SA stated that it was normal to hear screams like that, so (and I know it wasn’t you that posted it) we can’t assume PR didn’t hear any screams just because he didn’t report them, and as far as we know no one asked him if he heard the same screams as SA (because if he said yes he did- they have no case)

Sorry it took me a bit to find this. IMO they did ask PR if he heard the screams:

Mr Wright referred back to the evidence of nearby resident Sam Alford who heard screaming at 12.14am from the River Hull at the same time Relowicz claims he was at Oak Road with Libby.

Mr Wright said: “You were there until 12.19am Mr Relowicz. The first thing I would like to ask you is, given you were out of your car that night, and given you put yourself near to the drive of his house, is did you hear the desperate screaming of a woman coming from the river? You must have been there when that woman was desperately screaming Mr Relowicz.”

Relowicz said: “I didn’t hear anything, I only heard Libby screaming when I was driving away.”

Mr Wright said: “Does it follow Mr Relowicz, if Mr Alford heard screaming coming from the river at 12.17am, he could not hear Libby Squire and you because you never entered Oak Road playing fields?

“So as you were having sex with Libby Squire some other woman was screaming desperately over by the river that her body ended up in, is that right?”

Relowicz said: “I don’t know whether somebody was screaming I only said while I was driving away in my car Libby was screaming I don’t know about anyone else.”

 

[tigerowl]

The biggest piece of evidence from witnesses and experts was that Libby could barely walk without falling over. She'd fallen over a few times by the time she was intercepted by PR. Her knees were bleeding. She would find it difficult to run away. She would be uncoordinated.

The second really obvious piece of evidence is that she was incredibly distressed and wanted to go home

Despite those huge pieces of evidence she is supposed to leave a residential area to go into a dark park and negotiate the tricky terrain of that park. To clamber up the banks before that river. Then get down thru weeds and mud to get into a river far enough to be swept away?

That is really important information given to the court by witnesses and experts and I really apologise if I'm misreading this but it does appear to be being either disregarded or minimised.

Before I respond to this I would just like to clarify that I am not defending PR or blaming Libby. I am assessing the actual facts that have been made public. In those facts I clearly see a different possible chain of events to what you see. I don't know how to snip the quotes so I have copied and pasted to try and respond to you.

The biggest piece of evidence from witnesses and experts was that Libby could barely walk without falling over. She'd fallen over a few times by the time she was intercepted by PR. Her knees were bleeding. She would find it difficult to run away. She would be uncoordinated.
Libby has walked approximately the same distance whilst staggering about from her house to Haworth Street as it is from where PR alleges he left her to the riverbank. She didn't need to RUN away. If he has just left her there she could walk at her own pace, however uncoordinated. She could have fallen many times and got up and continued - just like she did on Bev Road. Why is it impossible to consider that the exact same behaviour she showed on the streets would not have been happening in the park? The most direct path she would have seen would have led her almost directly to the river but she could have simply moved forward at a shuffle and she would have still met the river - in 5 minutes or 50.

The second really obvious piece of evidence is that she was incredibly distressed and wanted to go home
Libby had been distressed and wanting to go home all night yet repeatedly walked away from that direction. She was offered help to get her there and did not take it. Again, why is it impossible to consider that the behaviour she showed on the street would not continue in the park? The very fact that she was incredibly distressed is what gives weight to my belief she wandered towards the river instead of making a rational decision to go home.

Despite those huge pieces of evidence she is supposed to leave a residential area to go into a dark park and negotiate the tricky terrain of that park. To clamber up the banks before that river. Then get down thru weeds and mud to get into a river far enough to be swept away?
If PR left her by the entrance to the park, it is not exactly 'residential'. It is a tenfoot at the back of an estate not a well lit street with houses on either side. Crossing the field is not tricky. It is very straightforward. So much has been made of how light it was because of the moon and the snow and therefore how easy it was for PR to see what he was doing and for SA to positively ID PR but now it suits the narrative the park is dark. If you had time, getting into the river would not be difficult. If she so desired, she could walk down a set of steps directly into it. Once in the river, the cold and the current would leave her very vulnerable to being swept away.

That is really important information given to the court by witnesses and experts and I really apologise if I'm misreading this but it does appear to be being either disregarded or minimised.
As far as I can see the experts have not been able to state a cause of death and witnesses have given evidence of screaming during the time PR was in the tenfoot but also after the time that PR is confirmed to have left the vicinity. I am not disregarding it or minimising it. Just repeating and analysing what has been reported from the court. The 'evidence' that PR murdered Libby seems only to be in the fact that he is a despicable human being who rapes and lies and therefore must have killed her because he's violent and you can't believe a word he says. That to me, is not evidence.

 

[tedtink]

PR embellished his 5th story with Libby screaming at him as he was leaving in the car so he did indeed mention the screams

Did SA or any other witnesses hear screams coming from near to the bottom of their gardens (close by) where PR said Libby is supposed to have screamed?

 

[ChiCubs2016]

Did SA or any other witnesses hear screams coming from near to the bottom of their gardens (close by) where PR said Libby is supposed to have screamed?

None that have been mentioned.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Sorry it took me a bit to find this. IMO they did ask PR if he heard the screams:

Mr Wright referred back to the evidence of nearby resident Sam Alford who heard screaming at 12.14am from the River Hull at the same time Relowicz claims he was at Oak Road with Libby.

Mr Wright said: “You were there until 12.19am Mr Relowicz. The first thing I would like to ask you is, given you were out of your car that night, and given you put yourself near to the drive of his house, is did you hear the desperate screaming of a woman coming from the river? You must have been there when that woman was desperately screaming Mr Relowicz.”

Relowicz said: “I didn’t hear anything, I only heard Libby screaming when I was driving away.”

Mr Wright said: “Does it follow Mr Relowicz, if Mr Alford heard screaming coming from the river at 12.17am, he could not hear Libby Squire and you because you never entered Oak Road playing fields?

“So as you were having sex with Libby Squire some other woman was screaming desperately over by the river that her body ended up in, is that right?”

Relowicz said: “I don’t know whether somebody was screaming I only said while I was driving away in my car Libby was screaming I don’t know about anyone else.”

I’d forgotten about that, but I feel it still fits with SAs testimony on timings and that they were singular screams. It made me consider bonfire night and how many times I’ve heard bangs, but still had to look left and right to see the fireworks- so I heard the noise, but didn’t accurately hear enough to be looking at the lights immediately.