Found Deceased UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #16 *ARREST*

[CoverMeCagney]

Manslaughter? Maybe not initially but it would take an amount of time where you'd surely realise what was happening. Time for you to stop

Yes, and that would typically result in a manslaughter charge. Killed, but didn't mean to, didn't plan to, spur of the moment. That is what I always felt happened with Libby, in that park, on that bench: he attacked her, she was screaming, he silenced her, she died.

Police still believe it was homicide - a term not often used in the UK. It covers both murder and manslaughter.

 

[Joolz1975]

Where? Under left eye - could be a scar? Right: a spot or such?

Do I remember - I think a rumour somewhere, maybe Hull Live comments at time - reading he did have scratches on face?

Josie said he had scratches when she saw him in court (i think)

 

[Audiohoney]

Josie said he had scratches when she saw him in court (i think)

Did she? I’m not sure she confirmed that. I remember her detailing his stocky appearance and I think his glasses were missing - which created speculation about him not having them following a possible scuffle that night in the park. But I think scratches theory only came up on FB comments.

 

[Mommysleuth11]

Did she? I’m not sure she confirmed that. I remember her detailing his stocky appearance and I think his glasses were missing - which created speculation about him not having them following a possible scuffle that night in the park. But I think scratches theory only came up on FB comments.

I think this is how it went also.

Noticably he has had his glasses at all appearences since he has 'had them back'?

 

[CoverMeCagney]

@Joelle88 said on March 8th after the 2nd court appearance:

Yes, I saw scabby spots on his face yesterday, as if he’d been picking at them. There were NO SCRATCHES on his face on his first court appearance.

 

[Audiohoney]

Wow. If I’d had to guess I’d have said a couple of years at most. Petty theft in itself doesn’t usually get a harsh sentence (some would say never harsh enough!) and if it was a single incident of flashing I don’t suppose he’d have got much longer ... but the judge has clearly taken into account the impact on his victims and this pattern of behaviour that gradually became more brazen and blatant.

I do think the judge will be aware of his connection to LS. Question is, has that changed his thinking around sentencing. OR could he foresee an escalating pattern of dangerous behaviour regardless, which gave him cause to issue a ‘severe’ sentence? To stop PR in his tracks? I can’t help but think that if he knew the LS connection, despite having to wipe that from his mind in sentencing, it must have played some role? Because how can you know that and then unknow it! ie: there’s a real chance that the very crime you suspect this behaviour might lead to, has already been committed by the defendant in front of you. Hard for that not to have a bearing.

 

[Deckard]

Holly Molly! I wasn't expecting that!
I got goosebumps from the mention of the scream mask in his car. It sounds to me that, as he was obviously getting kicks of frightening and intimidating young women. He might have planned to escalate his crimes by wearing the mask in the future. Regardless, it sounds like he was escalating in terms of how brazen and intimidating he was getting.
Those screams geard in park might as well have been him acting out on some fantasy frightening his poor victim..? Maybe he took her there into scary environment to get the sort of reaction of freight he seemed to enjoy so much.. just hope that mask didn't have anything to do with it.
Just a pure speculation of course and MOO
.
Great sentence today. Most likely will be appealed though

That's a valid point I hadn't considered at the time. Many people questioned why would an offender stick around while a victim was screaming intermittently for 15 minutes.

Perhaps he was sticking around because of the screaming!

Great news on the sentence. Hope Libby's family can receive justice in the future regardless of today's proceedings.

 

[jamjim]

Hull Daily Mail have put an article up which states word for word what the Judge told PR regarding the lengths he's serving for each crime:

The sentence is composed as follows: In respect of each voyeurism counts (that is counts one, five, six and ten) I impose consecutive sentences of 15 months imprisonment. That amounts to five years imprisonment.

"In respect of each of the burglary counts I impose the following consecutive sentences: On counts two and 13 there will be sentences of 18 months imprisonment and on count four, a sentence of six months.

"That amounts to three-and-a-half years imprisonment."

"In respect of the two public indecency counts I impose concurrent sentences of six months imprisonment."

"You will now stand."

"I sentence you to a total term of imprisonment of eight years and six months."

"I impose the necessary statutory charge and consequential order. I also make you the subject of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order in the terms agreed earlier today. That will be without limit of time."

"You will also be placed upon the register of offenders for the appropriate period."

"Take him down."

Every word said as Relowicz is jailed for 'perverted sexual campaign'

 

[NowhereMan]

This will be appealed. There is (in my opinion) little likelihood of the sentence standing as it is.

Taking away the sexual aspect, the burglary offences being punished consecutively seems excessive in terms of what others receive. Now I am not one of the 'hang 'em high' brigade but I can see why people might celebrate that - however the law is meant to be consistent.

If he has taken LS in mind then this is a completely inflated and unjust sentence. He has not even been charged for that.

 

[Deckard]

One thought on the length of the sentence.

It's a longshot but in cases where LE have difficulty in obtaining evidence to convict sometimes undercover cellmates are introduced to illicit a confession.

Most likely a time consuming process to gain a suspect's trust. Worth a try?

 

[CoverMeCagney]

One thought on the length of the sentence.

It's a longshot but in cases where LE have difficulty in obtaining evidence to convict sometimes undercover cellmates are introduced to illicit a confession.

Most likely a time consuming process to gain a suspect's trust. Worth a try?

Does that actually happen in the UK? If so I'll go. Always wanted to look inside a prison. I'll have to try and grow a beard... or these days can I just claim I identify as male?

 

[Joolz1975]

@Joelle88 said on March 8th after the 2nd court appearance:

Yes, I saw scabby spots on his face yesterday, as if he’d been picking at them. There were NO SCRATCHES on his face on his first court appearance.

Thanks Cags! Amazing how I've totally made that up . Sorry everyone and sorry Joelle for calling you Josie.

Jeez think I need to refresh my memory a bit.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Thanks Cags! Amazing how I've totally made that up . Sorry everyone and sorry Joelle for calling you Josie.

Jeez think I need to refresh my memory a bit.

It's easily done Joolz and I couldn't remember either way so thought I'd better check.

 

[Cherwell]

This will be appealed. There is (in my opinion) little likelihood of the sentence standing as it is.

Taking away the sexual aspect, the burglary offences being punished consecutively seems excessive in terms of what others receive. Now I am not one of the 'hang 'em high' brigade but I can see why people might celebrate that - however the law is meant to be consistent.

If he has taken LS in mind then this is a completely inflated and unjust sentence. He has not even been charged for that.

But you can't take away the sexual aspect. I'm not sure which of the five burglary charges were put on file, but it looks to me as though two of those he admitted involved a sexual element, while the third did not. Which would account for the difference in sentencing.

 

[Audiohoney]

Thanks Cags! Amazing how I've totally made that up . Sorry everyone and sorry Joelle for calling you Josie.

Jeez think I need to refresh my memory a bit.

The thread/s have gone on for so long with so much detail, it can be tricky to remember who said what! And whether facts were facts or more questions and suggestions. I had to double check too as I wasn’t sure. I do remember thinking about the missing glasses at the time though.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

The thread/s have gone on for so long with so much detail, it can be tricky to remember who said what! And whether facts were facts or more questions and suggestions. I had to double check too as I wasn’t sure. I do remember thinking about the missing glasses at the time though.

Any Thread dealing with unsolved cases should be automatically closed at the first sign of any breed of small dog entering the speculative narrative.

 

[Audiohoney]

This will be appealed. There is (in my opinion) little likelihood of the sentence standing as it is.

Taking away the sexual aspect, the burglary offences being punished consecutively seems excessive in terms of what others receive. Now I am not one of the 'hang 'em high' brigade but I can see why people might celebrate that - however the law is meant to be consistent.

If he has taken LS in mind then this is a completely inflated and unjust sentence. He has not even been charged for that.

I agree, he will have had to put thoughts of LS (assuming he’s aware of the case) out of his mind. But I do think that’s easier said than done.

That said, I can’t agree with us rethinking the sentence ‘taking away the sexual aspect’ It’s the sexual aspect that brings a whole different, sinister tone to these crimes. That would be like hearing a case about a burglar battering a 95 year old lady unconscious and stealing 30 quids worth of savings. And saying ‘taking away the fact he beat her to near death, he only stole thirty quid which usually gets a much lighter sentence’. It surely has to be judged in context? and in this case the context was leaving a used condom beside a child’s toy. It’s more twisted than simply opportunistically pinching a few quid from a student house.

 

[motherofdaughters]

This will be appealed. There is (in my opinion) little likelihood of the sentence standing as it is.

Taking away the sexual aspect, the burglary offences being punished consecutively seems excessive in terms of what others receive. Now I am not one of the 'hang 'em high' brigade but I can see why people might celebrate that - however the law is meant to be consistent.

If he has taken LS in mind then this is a completely inflated and unjust sentence. He has not even been charged for that.

I agree, he’s not even ‘knocked’ Much off for totality or time on remand.
Total is 9. 5 years
9 minus time on remand so totality is only 6 months

 

[Audiohoney]

Any Thread dealing with unsolved cases should be automatically closed at the first sign of any breed of small dog entering the speculative narrative.

I’d completely forgotten speculation over a small dog! My mind still goes back to you tube clips of foxes and their mating call.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Any Thread dealing with unsolved cases should be automatically closed at the first sign of any breed of small dog entering the speculative narrative.

I have no idea what you're wibbling on about but I literally just heard my son ask his mate "What's that dog called that sounds like a bugle? Oh yeah, a beagle".

I think the two of you would get on well