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

[Tortoise]

I am not sure your interpretation is incorrect

"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, such as asphyxiation despite no obvious injuries to the neck area.

I think the difference is refusing to say something is likely doesn't translate to unlikely, it means it is a possibility with no weight either way.

 

[Cherwell]

I'm struggling with the idea of her running away. The CCTV from outside of Welly and the later footage of her attempting to cross Beverley Road show how unsteady she was.

I can't speak for the effects of hypothermia, but as for alcohol I know that fright or a shock can sober up a drunk person very quickly indeed. So I could believe she was able to run despite being falling-down drunk a little earlier, but not sure how much the hypothermia would hamper her.

 

[JosieJo]

I think the difference is refusing to say something is likely doesn't translate to unlikely, it means it is a possibility with no weight either way.

Exactly that .....no being "the" likely cause ....is not the same as unlikely

 

[jamjim]

12:53
What the jury has to consider

Justice Lambert has told the jury what it has to cionsider when coming to a verdict on rape and murder.

She said: “The first is about consent. You will remember Mr Wright said that his case is that Libby Squire did not consent, whether she was capable or not.

"This case falls clearly on the premise she did not and was taken to Oak Road playing fields by Relowicz for easy sex. She did not, in her upset and wretched, state agree to have sex in the snow.

“You know the defence’s case is she initiated sex. You heard from Mr Jacobs coming back from his darts match and her asking him to lie down with him. The defence’s case is she scratched Pawel Relowicz’s face and he left her alive and well.

“In relation to second count murder: Bear in mind the expert evidence which doesn’t tell you great deal. Absence of signs of drowning and asphyxiation doesn’t mean she didn’t drown or was not asphyxiated.

"You have to be sure Pawel Relowicz assaulted her during the rape or put her into the river. The crown’s case is that he was sexually charged that night and why would he go back?

“You know that is denied by Relowicz and a point he makes about the geography of the area that it is impossible for him to do that in the time he was there.”

Libby Squire murder trial updates as judge sums up evidence

 

[JusticeDT]

I think the difference is refusing to say something is likely doesn't translate to unlikely, it means it is a possibility with no weight either way.

My point was I disagreed with the poster as I don't think it meant that drowning was more likely as stated by poster.

 

[JusticeDT]

DBM double post

 

[jamjim]

12:54
Trial halts for lunch

There is now a lunch break after which Justice Lambert will give the jury final directions before retiring to consider its verdict.

Libby Squire murder trial updates as judge sums up evidence

 

[JosieJo]

I think the difference is refusing to say something is likely doesn't translate to unlikely, it means it is a possibility with no weight either way.

Exactly that .....no being "the" likely cause ....is not the same as unlikely

I am not sure your interpretation is correct

"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, such as asphyxiation despite no obvious injuries to the neck area.

The comment does not equate the "unlikely" in relation to a percentage of possibility ....its saying its not "the" likely cause

 

[Stumpyaura]

DBM

 

[Stumpyaura]

This isn't to say that either witness is right or wrong, just im not sure one set should be completely dismissed because it doesn't fit with PR murdering Libby.
Sometimes it does feel as though people would find PR guilty despite the evidence and not because of it (i see the temptation to do this i really do, the man is just ghastly), disregarding anything that doesn't fit the narrative yet placing vital importance on those bits that do. Moo

Please note the Judges direction "you are able to draw inferences from the evidence. You will reach your verdicts based on all of the evidence in this case"

ALL the evidence.

If we only ever take one favourable (to either side ) piece of evidence and concentrate on that then it is unlikely anyone would ever be able to 100% commit to anything, conviction or acquittal in any case ever tried.

The Judge is correct in her direction.

The are not an infinite number of things that could have happened to Libby Squire. It is a a very narrow band of possibilities.

That is narrowed even further by the fact she was last seen in the control of a sexual predator who had showed no sign of reigning in his behaviour and was in fact becoming more daring and adventurous. Given ALL the evidence of his behaviour, his numerous changing stories, the inconsistencies of what he said with reality, the fact Libby had to be coerced away from a well lit busy area very near her home, the fact she was never seen again after she went in the vicinity of the park Relowicz took her STRAIGHT to, without delay, the fact that it is way more than probable he forced himself on her given ALL what we know, the fact that he returned to the area hours later ,again without delay, and then still felt the need to commit further sexual offences, the fact that he made up stories about underwear, that he failed to mention the sexual contact until it was beyond doubt this had happened, that despite his "concern" on that night he showed zero concern in the following days. We could go on and on.

If despite this anyone thinks that the most likely thing of all that could have happened is that Relowicz, after picking up/coercing Libby out of "concern" and driving STRAIGHT to a dark, secluded, desolate park AWAY from the prying cameras he knew so well about, that this altered Libbys mood and demeanour so much that she initiated immediate sex with a man she had been reluctant to engage with moments earlier, that he obliged with that request despite been unable to kiss her because of apparent disgust at the saliva on her mouth (a telling image if ever there was one...) , that he suffered his injuries because of this refusal to kiss her, that he then left Libby because of HER behaviour, unharmed , then that after seeing her "follow his car", he would show his later "concern" by driving STRAIGHT back to the park without looking anywhere else it is massively more likely she would be, and would show zero concern at anytime following that park visit. And of course that Libby would upend all known prior behaviour (even years hence self harm behaviour) and throw herself in the river having made her way there through an enviroment she had previously studiously avoided, rather than walk the few hundred yards back to where she had been for several hours or the few hundred yards back towards her house....and after having done that, on discovery of her body, shown no definitive signs of death by drowning as though in fact it was MORE likely she was dead or dying when entering the river.

If anyone thinks that is the most likely occurence of that night and the time following then I do not understand that thought process.

The jury might well see that as the most likely but given ALL the facts then it would be a gross miscarriage.[/QUOTE]

This is a great post, really helps to focus the mind on how to come to a judgement where there is no 'smoking gun' piece of evidence

 

[JosieJo]

12:53
What the jury has to consider

Justice Lambert has told the jury what it has to cionsider when coming to a verdict on rape and murder.

She said: “The first is about consent. You will remember Mr Wright said that his case is that Libby Squire did not consent, whether she was capable or not.

"This case falls clearly on the premise she did not and was taken to Oak Road playing fields by Relowicz for easy sex. She did not, in her upset and wretched, state agree to have sex in the snow.

“You know the defence’s case is she initiated sex. You heard from Mr Jacobs coming back from his darts match and her asking him to lie down with him. The defence’s case is she scratched Pawel Relowicz’s face and he left her alive and well.

“In relation to second count murder: Bear in mind the expert evidence which doesn’t tell you great deal. Absence of signs of drowning and asphyxiation doesn’t mean she didn’t drown or was not asphyxiated.

"You have to be sure Pawel Relowicz assaulted her during the rape or put her into the river. The crown’s case is that he was sexually charged that night and why would he go back?

“You know that is denied by Relowicz and a point he makes about the geography of the area that it is impossible for him to do that in the time he was there.”

Libby Squire murder trial updates as judge sums up evidence

"In relation to second count murder: Bear in mind the expert evidence which doesn’t tell you great deal. Absence of signs of drowning and asphyxiation doesn’t mean she didn’t drown or was not asphyxiated."

She is quite clear here

 

[ChiCubs2016]

I can't speak for the effects of hypothermia, but as for alcohol I know that fright or a shock can sober up a drunk person very quickly indeed. So I could believe she was able to run despite being falling-down drunk a little earlier, but not sure how much the hypothermia would hamper her.

I have thought this as well. The expert indicated she would not be able to defend herself. I will have to go back and look for exact wording, but I recall at the time thinking she would not be able to fight enough to fend off PR raping her. I do think Libby could have tried to run away. I do not think she would have gotten far as it probably would have been very similar to how she appeared walking on CCTV. Staggering and stumbling. I say she could have tried but I do not know if she did. MOO

 

[HollyHunter9]

The 12.30 witnesses were awake, not woken up.

Ok thanks for clarifying

 

[Tortoise]

Not much (if anything?) made of the drone footage by anyone.

 

[Legally Bland]

I have thought this as well. The expert indicated she would not be able to defend herself. I will have to go back and look for exact wording, but I recall at the time thinking she would not be able to fight enough to fend off PR raping her. I do think Libby could have tried to run away. I do not think she would have gotten far as it probably would have been very similar to how she appeared walking on CCTV. Staggering and stumbling. I say she could have tried but I do not know if she did. MOO

11:27
Questions continued
Would her vulnerability be affected by the cold, alcohol and any decision-making?

• “Yes. I concluded she would be very vulnerable to a number of threats. Firstly, environmental threats - so the cold weather. Secondly, impairments in her own behaviour and thirdly to threats from other individuals who may approach her, in terms of assessing their intent and interactions with other individuals.”

Would her ability to defend herself from an assault be affected by the answers to the first four questions?

• “I concluded she would have limited ability to physically defend herself. Firstly, she would have significantly reduced sense of awareness and not getting into an unsafe situation. Secondly, she would likely have impaired ability because she has been weakened by the cold and thirdly, she would be limited of escape just by the physical act of running away, because of the poor coordination.”

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

 

[Newthoughts]

@Lestrade brilliant post earlier on.

 

[HLC35]

12:09
Who is Pawel Relowicz?

Justice Lambert says Relowicz lived in Hull for eight years and moved over here to live with his sister in Hull but she eventually moved away. He had a wife and two children and worked as a butcher.

Libby Squire murder trial updates as judge sums up evidence

A vile man that could do this as a recently married, young father of two very young children. My children are exactly the same age as PR’s and his wife JR’s. I am absolutely exhausted looking after two babies/toddlers full time, and that’s with the help of a very supportive partner and family. And even before lockdown! How PR’s wife managed left on her own so much I have no idea. With the added worry/concern as to what her husband was up to when he was out, and how he possibly treated her when he was at home. I am beyond pleased/relieved for this poor woman that she is free of PR and can start a new life with someone new. There are two children here who will learn later on what their father did whilst their mum was at home looking after them, teaching them about the world. Strength to them and JR for the future. moo.

 

[JosieJo]

Please note the Judges direction "you are able to draw inferences from the evidence. You will reach your verdicts based on all of the evidence in this case"

ALL the evidence.

If we only ever take one favourable (to either side ) piece of evidence and concentrate on that then it is unlikely anyone would ever be able to 100% commit to anything, conviction or acquittal in any case ever tried.

The Judge is correct in her direction.

The are not an infinite number of things that could have happened to Libby Squire. It is a a very narrow band of possibilities.

That is narrowed even further by the fact she was last seen in the control of a sexual predator who had showed no sign of reigning in his behaviour and was in fact becoming more daring and adventurous. Given ALL the evidence of his behaviour, his numerous changing stories, the inconsistencies of what he said with reality, the fact Libby had to be coerced away from a well lit busy area very near her home, the fact she was never seen again after she went in the vicinity of the park Relowicz took her STRAIGHT to, without delay, the fact that it is way more than probable he forced himself on her given ALL what we know, the fact that he returned to the area hours later ,again without delay, and then still felt the need to commit further sexual offences, the fact that he made up stories about underwear, that he failed to mention the sexual contact until it was beyond doubt this had happened, that despite his "concern" on that night he showed zero concern in the following days. We could go on and on.

If despite this anyone thinks that the most likely thing of all that could have happened is that Relowicz, after picking up/coercing Libby out of "concern" and driving STRAIGHT to a dark, secluded, desolate park AWAY from the prying cameras he knew so well about, that this altered Libbys mood and demeanour so much that she initiated immediate sex with a man she had been reluctant to engage with moments earlier, that he obliged with that request despite been unable to kiss her because of apparent disgust at the saliva on her mouth (a telling image if ever there was one...) , that he suffered his injuries because of this refusal to kiss her, that he then left Libby because of HER behaviour, unharmed , then that after seeing her "follow his car", he would show his later "concern" by driving STRAIGHT back to the park without looking anywhere else it is massively more likely she would be, and would show zero concern at anytime following that park visit. And of course that Libby would upend all known prior behaviour (even years hence self harm behaviour) and throw herself in the river having made her way there through an enviroment she had previously studiously avoided, rather than walk the few hundred yards back to where she had been for several hours or the few hundred yards back towards her house....and after having done that, on discovery of her body, shown no definitive signs of death by drowning as though in fact it was MORE likely she was dead or dying when entering the river.

If anyone thinks that is the most likely occurence of that night and the time following then I do not understand that thought process.

The jury might well see that as the most likely but given ALL the facts then it would be a gross miscarriage.

The problem for me personally is that criminal law should not be based on a balance of probability... it shouldn't be what most likely happened
The standard for murder is ....you have to "be sure" he killed her
Not that you believe one side more than the other

 

[Newthoughts]

The problem for me personally is that criminal law should not be based on a balance of probability... it shouldn't be what most likely happened
The standard for murder is ....you have to "be sure" he killed her
Not that you believe one side more than the other

Then surely nobody would go to prison?

 

[JosieJo]

Then surely nobody would go to prison?

Why not ? If the jury is sure the person was killed by the defendant