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

[mrjitty]

Completely agree with this. This is a key issue which throws the prosecution case into doubt. The fact the prosecution did not call the other witnesses who heard the screams makes it look as though they are selecting evidence to suit only the scenario they want the jury to believe. They might have been better including them I feel and leaving it for the jury to interpret.

It's worth mentioning that in the pre-trial discussions, the prosecution and defence will discuss which side is better to call a witness, if they do indeed call them. So that tends to depend on which side more more naturally want to lead the evidence in chief, and which is better to cross examine.

So it's a reach that the prosecution is somehow trying not to call evidence that doesn't fit the case. It is more that in this situation it makes more sense for the defence to produce the evidence in chief (remembering the defence cannot lead the witness) and for the prosecution to be able to X

I think it is safe to assume the witnesses would have been called by the prosecution if the defence did not intend to call them.

 

[Sarahjo]

So I was thinking about the 7.5 minutes time frame, some don’t think it’s enough time to get across the park and back and do everything in between but what about thinking about the other scenario, where he didn’t go into the park and left Libby on the road.. 7.5 minutes is quite a bit of time to hang about.. let’s be generous and say the rape took 1.5 mins, that’s still 6 minutes, did he hang around for a chat after??

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder what people make of the fact that manslaughter hasn't been offered as an alternative charge to murder. Is the defence so confident PR's not guilty plea will be accepted by the jury that they don't feel the need to entertain a lesser charge?

I think I'm right in saying manslaughter has to be mentioned in the original charges, though the CPS website is ambiguous:

Manslaughter is an alternative verdict that can be returned on a prosecution for murder. Section 6 Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that, on an indictment for murder, a person found not guilty may be found guilty of manslaughter.
[...]
In murder cases, when a verdict of guilty of manslaughter arises as a real possibility, a separate count or counts of manslaughter should be added to the indictment. Notwithstanding Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, above, it is preferable to include any appropriate alternative counts in the indictment.
[...]
The prosecution should decide in advance of a murder trial whether or not an alternative count of manslaughter should be added to the indictment.​

(my bold)
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service
Does 'should' here mean 'must'?

This is bothering me, as I can't help thinking (from the evidence presented in court) that manslaughter would be a safer verdict. IMO it's definitely PR's fault that Libby is dead, whether or not he killed her with his own hands. But as things stand, if the jury isn't convinced by the defence, they'll have to go straight to guilty of murder, if the compromise of manslaughter isn't available as an option. Or if the defence has sown some doubts, they would have to let PR off completely.

Would be interested to hear others' thoughts.

In my opinion manslaughter would make it too messy and undermine their case.

If they went to the jury saying it was a violent rape and he asphyxiated her to silence her (intent), but oh wait, he might have left her alive and distressed and vulnerable near water, they are not only inviting wild speculation of different scenarios but it also complicates matters with other witnesses who interacted with her and left her vulnerable to dying in the snow from hypothermia. They are at least showing that their intent by charging is not to get him anyway they can, but to stop a rapist who kills his victims. JMO

 

[HLC35]

I think the biggest issue with the screaming is that neither witness heard two sets of screams.

Neither witness heard screams coming from where PR claims Libby was screaming.

One witness saw a man. That man has not come forward - even anonymously.

Therefore I think considering the rest of the evidence becomes very important if you're looking to allay reasonable doubts rather than considering one piece in total isolation Particular PRs behaviour before and after and the lies he chose to tell.

Paradoxically I think if PR had said he'd taken Libby someway into the park and much closer to the river - it would have made the misadventure defence slightly credible.

Although on everything else I'd think he was guilty - that would have introduced doubts for me. But he didn't and so I find misadventure from where he claims to have left her very difficult to accept.

m
Absolutely agree.

 

[Mommysleuth11]

It's worth mentioning that in the pre-trial discussions, the prosecution and defence will discuss which side is better to call a witness, if they do indeed call them. So that tends to depend on which side more more naturally want to lead the evidence in chief, and which is better to cross examine.

So it's a reach that the prosecution is somehow trying not to call evidence that doesn't fit the case. It is more that in this situation it makes more sense for the defence to produce the evidence in chief (remembering the defence cannot lead the witness) and for the prosecution to be able to X

I think it is safe to assume the witnesses would have been called by the prosecution if the defence did not intend to call them.

Was it not stated the prosecution had decided NOT to call them as witnesses, therefore the defence did?

 

[jamjim]

10:40
The trial resumes

Pawel Relowicz is back in the dock and the jury is in.

Justice Lambert is returning to her summing up which she began on Wednesday

Libby Squire murder trial live: Judge to sum up evidence

 

[mrazda71]

So I was thinking about the 7.5 minutes time frame, some don’t think it’s enough time to get across the park and back and do everything in between but what about thinking about the other scenario, where he didn’t go into the park and left Libby on the road.. 7.5 minutes is quite a bit of time to hang about.. let’s be generous and say the rape took 1.5 mins, that’s still 6 minutes, did he hang around for a chat after??

YES! and IF (we know it didn't) it happened as Relowicz says ... he would have seen which way Libby 'stumbled off' - into the park or into the street- 'screaming and shouting' he said didn't he?

 

[LastSeenWearing]

I keep going back to the unidentified man leaving ORPF after the screams. It is the only witness sighting which could put PR actually within the park if it was him. If SA had not seen this man there would have been no possible evidence that PR had ever entered the park and less evidence for a murder. Therefore I would have thought finding and eliminating this man and asking him what he had seen and heard was extremely important yet no appeal was put out to trace him. And as far as we are aware no-one ever came forward. Surely that is very strange. This man could be hugely important to the case and yet as far as we are aware little effort was made to trace him but no-one is 100% positive it was PR. Very strange to me that.

 

[HLC35]

I think the biggest issue with the screaming is that neither witness heard two sets of screams.

Neither witness heard screams coming from where PR claims Libby was screaming.

One witness saw a man. That man has not come forward - even anonymously.

Therefore I think considering the rest of the evidence becomes very important if you're looking to allay reasonable doubts rather than considering one piece in total isolation Particular PRs behaviour before and after and the lies he chose to tell.

Paradoxically I think if PR had said he'd taken Libby someway into the park and much closer to the river - it would have made the misadventure defence slightly credible.

Although on everything else I'd think he was guilty - that would have introduced doubts for me. But he didn't and so I find misadventure from where he claims to have left her very difficult to accept.

I completely agree with everything you’ve said here.

 

[Newthoughts]

So do you think the reporter just decided to completely fabricate the fact that local people are known to frequent the park making noise? As well as the person on this forum who has an allotment there? Why do you think they would do that? Genuine question. Just interested. Sometimes we do have to consider all evidence without letting our preconceptions shoot them down in flames.

Genuine answer based on opinion only. I don't think the Mirror and the locals it spoke to are necessarily lying. But I do think there might be a difference between a summer evening and a freezing cold night in Jan based on experience of every place I've ever lived. I've always noticed the antisocial and irritating element don't hang around in the parks when if gets very cold and dealing becomes more risky for them.

I can't speak for Hull and am willing to accept it may be the exception and I'm sure lots of people will have exceptions to share.

Second genuine answer based on opinion only. As I've moved from A levels to student to parent my opinions of the antisocial elements have gone from positive to indifferent to negative. If it were me given the opportunity to rant in a national paper I would. About everything.

Third genuine opinion. I respect 99.9999% of the opinions on here as valid and informed even if I don't agree with them. However - IMO - the gentlemen with the allotment queried expert testimony when he didn't appear to have the qualifications to do so and made other assertions that seemed unlikely and we're not backed up. Therefore I felt - IMOO - that I would be more cynical about his other assertions. That is only my opinion and he appears to have been banned so cannot respond.

That's my genuine answer. I am not driven by preconceptions and I'm fully aware I don't have all the facts.

Today something may be said in court that may change that

 

[jamjim]

10:50
Judge recaps the evidence of screams her at Oak Road

Justice Lamber is remidning the jury of the evidence of SA who lived near the playing fields.

He heard several screams at 12.14am before seeing a man leaving the park "purposefully" without looking back.

Claremont Avenue residents DB and HD also heard screaming but say it was 12.30am by which time Relowicz had left the area.

Libby Squire murder trial live: Judge to sum up evidence

 

[Newthoughts]

I keep going back to the unidentified man leaving ORPF after the screams. It is the only witness sighting which could put PR actually within the park if it was him. If SA had not seen this man there would have been no possible evidence that PR had ever entered the park and less evidence for a murder. Therefore I would have thought finding and eliminating this man and asking him what he had seen and heard was extremely important yet no appeal was put out to trace him. And as far as we are aware no-one ever came forward. Surely that is very strange. This man could be hugely important to the case and yet as far as we are aware little effort was made to trace him but no-one is 100% positive it was PR. Very strange to me that.

The only person that can ever be 100% sure in any trial is the defendant. The rest have to plough through evidence to get probabilities.

 

[jamjim]

10:55
Judge gives advice on expert evidence

Justice Lambert told the jury: “You don’t have to accept it [expert evidence] but keep in mind neither side is disputing the evidence but its the weight you put on that is a matter for you."

Libby Squire murder trial live: Judge to sum up evidence

 

[Tortoise]

There was an earlier update from the reporter

09:28JAMES CAMPBELL

Jury due to retire today

After two weeks of evidence, the jury is due to retire today.

Justice Lambert began her summing up on Wednesday and should be finished by lunchtime.

After that time, the jury will retire to consider its verdict.

Libby Squire murder trial live: Judge to sum up evidence

 

[Joolz1975]

The screams definitely confuse things a little and if only one witness had come forward then it would be so much more clear cut.

But as none of the 3 witnesses have come forward saying they heard 2 lots of screams then I am fully accepting that somewhere along the line the timings have been a little muddled up and I am more willing to believe that a trained military person would be more accurate with the information and the times so I personally think the witness statement of SA is the more accurate one.

 

[mrjitty]

In my opinion manslaughter would make it too messy and undermine their case.

If they went to the jury saying it was a violent rape and he asphyxiated her to silence her (intent), but oh wait, he might have left her alive and distressed and vulnerable near water, they are not only inviting wild speculation of different scenarios but it also complicates matters with other witnesses who interacted with her and left her vulnerable to dying in the snow from hypothermia. They are at least showing that their intent by charging is not to get him anyway they can, but to stop a rapist who kills his victims. JMO

Yes. Also they don't want him to plead down as it is not their case.

And from the defence point of view, though they can plead alternative results based on what facts the jury finds, they can't very well admit it might well be manslaughter when his version he left her well enough in the park.

And invitation of manslaughter invites the inference that he was very involved in her death

So basically neither side wants to go there.

 

[jamjim]

11:09
Cause of death not determined

Justice Lambert has turned to the evidence on patholgist Dr Matthew Lyall.

She told the jury: "Dr Lyall described his methodical examination of the body - there were 14 marks, abrasions, areas of bruising he found but he could not determine whether they were caused before or after death.

"One thing Dr Lyall could say was that Libby had not died of natural causes. Apart from that, he could not ascertain the cause of death.

"He said he wasn’t prepared to say that death by drowning was the likely explanation as classical features were not present.

“He was asked about hypothermia. He said it was a plausible explanation and he couldn’t exclude it but could not advance it as a cause."

Justic Lambert also reminded the jury Dr Lyall could not rule out a violent death,much as asphyxiation despite no obvious injuries to the neck area."

Libby Squire murder trial live: Judge to sum up evidence

 

[mrjitty]

Was it not stated the prosecution had decided NOT to call them as witnesses, therefore the defence did?

Like I say, this can sound like misfeasance or trying to hide the evidence, but these witnesses were always going to be called.

Clearly the prosecution wanted to X them, and the defence is better to lead them. So then the prosecution don't call them, knowing the defence will. Often this is discussed in the pretrial organisation.

The implication that the prosecution were trying to gloss over or hide this evidence by not calling the witness is misleading. It is about whose case they fit with.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes. Also they don't want him to plead down as it is not their case.

And from the defence point of view, though they can plead alternative results based on what facts the jury finds, they can't very well admit it might well be manslaughter when his version he left her well enough in the park.

And invitation of manslaughter invites the inference that he was very involved in her death

So basically neither side wants to go there.

And there is no evidence to advance a manslaughter case, IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

I'm sure that someone (on here previously) said that the judge can put manslaughter back on the table when they sum up, but I cant remember more details, sorry

Yes - but as neither side allege it - it has not emerged from the trial evidence or submissions

So the judge won't raise it.