GUILTY UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, found deceased, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #26

I am still so thrilled with the charges of murder and rape but a tiny part of me wonders if he actually did kill her. She could have been raped and left there after he got his kicks and she could have stumbled and fell into the river. That is a tiny chance and just pure speculation but overall he did it I think. How and what really happened only that scum PR knows. I’m so proud of the jury for pulling this verdict! No wonder it took time
 
Not sure, but I would have thought manslaughter, but possibly still murder
The test is beyond reasonable doubt. 11 of 12 jurors decided that test to have been met. Murder has 2 elements 1. - actus reus - the Victim was killed by act of defendant - and 2. mens rea - intent - the perpetrator intended death OR grievous bodily harm .

The judge was careful in sentencing remarks . She did not say he had intent to kill but in any event had sufficient intent re GBH for it to be murder .
 
I know I'm not in the jury and that's why I would like to know more what additional evidence they saw to decide he put her in the river ,I just missing this final puzzle
I'm accepting verdict I just would like to know details, how they came to this conclusion because here on the forum opinions was split not everyone felt 100% sure he put her in the river (evidence provided in Hull newspaper wasn't clear )
Thats all
Okay, but as everyone else says, we would never know. Also what perhaps could help you understand more is that his defence did not deny in their mitigation the fact that PR put her in the river. It seemed like there was no reason to doubt it after the verdict. And whether she was already dead or dying or drowned because she was put in the water alive is not of importance as you can see from the judge's sentencing. Whether some of us here in WS found there was not enough evidence BARD to be certain he murdered her is also not important. We only had snippets of information. Those who had the knowledge of all presented evidence and responsibility were convinced. This is what is important.
 
Okay, but as everyone else says, we would never know. Also what perhaps could help you understand more is that his defence did not deny in their mitigation the fact that PR put her in the river. It seemed like there was no reason to doubt it after the verdict. And whether she was already dead or dying or drowned because she was put in the water alive is not of importance as you can see from the judge's sentencing. Whether some of us here in WS found there was not enough evidence BARD to be certain he murdered her is also not important. We only had snippets of information. Those who had the knowledge of all presented evidence and responsibility were convinced. This is what is important.

Jumping off your post, I think it's also important to point out that many people think direct evidence must be available to support a conviction, when in fact most convictions are based on heavy circumstantial evidence, not so much direct evidence.

Difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence is that circumstantial is evidence that is open to reasonable interpretation by a reasonable person reviewing it (i.e. even autopsy results are circumstantial because they are open to interpretation, whether by the medical examiner, LE, or the public). Direct evidence on the other hand does not require interpretation (eye witness accounts, surveillance video of the murder).
 
Thanks, so it would be for the prosecution to decide.
To be clear, it would be for the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) to decide. It would depend on whether they thought there was enough evidence for a successful prosecution. As things stood, there was for the rape. If he had admitted to that, they might not have gone ahead with the murder charge as there was no direct evidence, and he would just have been sentenced for rape with no need for a trial.
 
My o/h has just said he remembers meeting Oliver Saxby in Temple at a barristers party about 15 years ago whilst he was still training. Says it’s another world. He agrees it seems incredibly unjust that someone like PR gets access to someone as high ranking as Saxby, and at the tax payers’ cost. I also didn’t realise it costs between £80-£100k a year to ‘keep’ prisoners. Crikey.

I actually just did the Yorkshire war cry of ‘How Much’ :eek:

Actually if I’m using my proper hull accent it should read ‘Ow Much’ :D
 
My o/h has just said he remembers meeting Oliver Saxby in Temple at a barristers party about 15 years ago whilst he was still training. Says it’s another world. He agrees it seems incredibly unjust that someone like PR gets access to someone as high ranking as Saxby, and at the tax payers’ cost. I also didn’t realise it costs between £80-£100k a year to ‘keep’ prisoners. Crikey.
Personally I think it’s a good job he had someone who was excelling at their job- can you imagine the problems and mistrials and appeals that would happen if people were only half heartedly defended by people who weren’t up to the job. He had someone who knew the law in and out arguing his case and the as still found guilty- the way it should be. Can you imagine the thread if the defence just sort of shrugged their shoulders and had nothing to say.
 
My o/h has just said he remembers meeting Oliver Saxby in Temple at a barristers party about 15 years ago whilst he was still training. Says it’s another world. He agrees it seems incredibly unjust that someone like PR gets access to someone as high ranking as Saxby, and at the tax payers’ cost. I also didn’t realise it costs between £80-£100k a year to ‘keep’ prisoners. Crikey.
Do you mean that good lawyers should defend only wealthy and influential clients and ordinary people have no right to decent defence? I think it is offensive to Defence lawyers to imply this. *Another world* indeed! All people are equal and all deserve respectful treatment. Besides lawyers take oath to help their clients to the best of their ability. They chose their career as defence lawyers to help any accused. Did anybody force PR's lawyer to take this case?
 
I totally agree with Newthoughts. Yes the possibility of new evidence can't be ruled out, but in this case I would suggest any new evidence would back up a clearly obvious conviction.
<modsnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally I think it’s a good job he had someone who was excelling at their job- can you imagine the problems and mistrials and appeals that would happen if people were only half heartedly defended by people who weren’t up to the job. He had someone who knew the law in and out arguing his case and the as still found guilty- the way it should be. Can you imagine the thread if the defence just sort of shrugged their shoulders and had nothing to say.
That’s a very good point and I feel a bit silly for saying otherwise now :oops::) I’ve deleted it. But I still think it was wrong for someone like OS to trivialise PR’s other offences. That part was definitely a dated, misogynistic and nepotistic way of defending. Imo.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean that good lawyers should defend only wealthy and influential clients and ordinary people have no right to decent defence? I think it is offensive to Defence lawyers to imply this. *Another world* indeed! All people are equal and all deserve respectful treatment. Besides lawyers take oath to help their clients to the best of their ability. They chose their career as defence lawyers to help any accused. Did anybody force PR's lawyer to take this case?
I haven’t explained myself very well, sorry. I’ve deleted it. I meant I think it was wrong for someone like OS to trivialise PR’s other offences. That part was definitely a dated, misogynistic and nepotistic way of defending. That’s ‘the other world’ I meant. It sadly still exists in some places amongst the ‘old professions’.
 
Last edited:
Jumping off your post, I think it's also important to point out that many people think direct evidence must be available to support a conviction, when in fact most convictions are based on heavy circumstantial evidence, not so much direct evidence.

Difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence is that circumstantial is evidence that is open to reasonable interpretation by a reasonable person reviewing it (i.e. even autopsy results are circumstantial because they are open to interpretation, whether by the medical examiner, LE, or the public). Direct evidence on the other hand does not require interpretation (eye witness accounts, surveillance video of the murder).

Thank you for this post Sillybilly.
 
I haven’t explained myself very well, sorry. Feel a bit stupid tbh. I meant I think it was wrong for someone like OS to trivialise PR’s other offences. That part was definitely a dated, misogynistic and nepotistic way of defending. That’s ‘the other world’. Imo. It sadly still exists in some places amongst the ‘old professions’.
I ranted because I am an egalitarian freak:) But of course misogyny is also absolute No No for me.
 
That’s a very good point and I feel a bit silly for saying otherwise now :oops::) But I still think it was wrong for someone like OS to trivialise PR’s other offences. That part was definitely a dated, misogynistic and nepotistic way of defending. Imo.
I agree! I felt a lot of his sexual predatory behaviour was minimised by his defence. I personally would hate to defend someone like PR. The lawyer is obviously well seasoned and extremely professional but they are human and must have opinions.

Just hearing examples such as how PR masturbated in front of a terrified girl on the street and then ejaculated over her front door just gives so much insight into his mindset. To leave used condoms in homes with literally his DNA in, was so brazen. The audacity is incredulous.
 
To be clear, it would be for the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) to decide. It would depend on whether they thought there was enough evidence for a successful prosecution. As things stood, there was for the rape. If he had admitted to that, they might not have gone ahead with the murder charge as there was no direct evidence, and he would just have been sentenced for rape with no need for a trial.

I don't believe that's the case. If he had admitted to the rape he would still have been tried for murder.

“There was no doubt in my mind from the moment of Pawel Relowicz’s first arrest that he was responsible for Libby’s disappearance. Of course at that stage in the investigation, we didn’t know exactly what had happened to Libby, but it was clear to me and my team that our investigation would uncover the truth."
“On Thursday 24 October 2019, he was charged in connection with Libby’s rape and murder.

Pawel Relowicz convicted of the rape and murder of Libby Squire | Humberside Police
 
Jumping off your post, I think it's also important to point out that many people think direct evidence must be available to support a conviction, when in fact most convictions are based on heavy circumstantial evidence, not so much direct evidence.

Difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence is that circumstantial is evidence that is open to reasonable interpretation by a reasonable person reviewing it (i.e. even autopsy results are circumstantial because they are open to interpretation, whether by the medical examiner, LE, or the public). Direct evidence on the other hand does not require interpretation (eye witness accounts, surveillance video of the murder).
I started sweating when I saw you had quoted my post! I thought I did something wrong again!
Phew
thank you for your excellent post, it does clear things up for people like me who are perhaps new to following trials here in WS. This difference between circumstantial and direct evidence is difficult to get your head round. By the way, i noticed that in one of the articles I read it mentioned that one juror asked whether circumstantial evidence count to which the reply was positive from both the judge and the prosecution. This could be one of the reasons the conviction required a majority verdict and the jury's deliberations took some time. Jmo
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
2,539
Total visitors
2,696

Forum statistics

Threads
590,036
Messages
17,929,224
Members
228,044
Latest member
Bosie
Back
Top