GUILTY UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, found deceased, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #25

[Ruthbullock]

None of the expert evidence supports that. Quite the contrary.



We are on a thread about Libby. My comment was about the evidence in this trial, not general possibilities of how any person may die... it seems confusing to mention points experts have discounted.

Expert testified she could have lived 30 mins standing in water of that temp, that is what my response referred to.

After 30 minutes- LS would have therefore succumbed to cold water shock or exhaustion. One would cause drowning, one would cause asphyxiation neither would have been murder. Do I know she wasn’t murdered, no- but nor do I know she was.

 

[astheworldfallsdown]

This must be sheer torture for her poor parents. I hope there's a verdict tomorrow (that sees him put away for a very long time) and Libby's loved ones don't have to spend another weekend waiting and wondering.

Thank you @jamjim for your updates and @Niner for your notes.

 

[Newthoughts]

I think the judge tells us all we need to know about the pathologist report ..all the speculation in the world will not help

"In relation to the count of murder she told them: “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."

Jury to decide if Libby death was murder, manslaughter or tragedy

So it's a good job we have lots of other evidence to help.

 

[Newthoughts]

Thanks @jamjim and thanks @Niner

Invaluable info

 

[JosieJo]

They really must be struggling between murder and manslaughter I feel ....I can't believe they are still routinely going over evidence....i think they needed clarification on what level of proof the post mortem gave ...im hoping they have a little more clarity now but not convinced. Would be really interested in whether more than two of them are unsure

 

[elliefant]

Thanks again @jamjim , see you tomorrow with all our fingers crossed - except yours as we are relying on you to type

 

[CoverMeCagney]

We should talk about why the judge hasn’t yet offered a majority verdict option, as would be fairly typical after this long.

Is it because the jury are very close to a unanimous decision, and that would of course be preferable and worth the wait?

Or is it because they’re so evenly split it wouldn’t make a jot of difference either way?

Or... she’s just not got round to it yet. I feel like the minute she does, we’ll have a verdict.

 

[Newthoughts]

We should talk about why the judge hasn’t yet offered a majority verdict option, as would be fairly typical after this long.

Is it because the jury are very close to a unanimous decision, and that would of course be preferable and worth the wait?

Or is it because they’re so evenly split it wouldn’t make a jot of difference either way?

Or... she’s just not got round to it yet. I feel like the minute she does, we’ll have a verdict.

I've never followed a trial before so I don't know when that happens.

Does it happen often?

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I've never followed a trial before so I don't know when that happens.

Does it happen often?

It feels like it’s usually happened by now!

 

[Newthoughts]

The jury must consider what logical and obvious inferences can be drawn from the evidence.

If more than one inference can be drawn, and one doesn't support guilt - then a not guilty verdict has to follow.

For example, I find suicide to be speculative. There is no real evidential foundation to infer she committed suicide IMO

Libby blundering into the river by accident, i would normally find to be a bit too coincidental and convenient, unless the evidence is showing it more or reasonably likely it happened that way (@Tortoise 'analaysis)

When the evidence leads in one direction, then events that are normally rare, become more probable

I'm genuinely curious.

How is Libby blundering into the water after been raped not too coincidental?. In real world terms cos it sounds just too lucky to be true for PR for me?

Also how does it reconcile with his later behaviour?

 

[JosieJo]

It feels like it’s usually happened by now!

I thought so too

I think with Joanna Yates it was offered after 2 days

 

[jamjim]

It feels like it’s usually happened by now!

It was really interesting reading through the Joanna Yeates thread you posted earlier, Cags.

I noticed the judge for that trial offered them a majority verdict after 11 hours of deliberations. We're at over 20 hours now, so hopefully, if it's needed, it'll be put on the table tomorrow morning.

 

[PitchforkRed]

We should talk about why the judge hasn’t yet offered a majority verdict option, as would be fairly typical after this long.

Is it because the jury are very close to a unanimous decision, and that would of course be preferable and worth the wait?

Or is it because they’re so evenly split it wouldn’t make a jot of difference either way?

Or... she’s just not got round to it yet. I feel like the minute she does, we’ll have a verdict.

So is the judge informed of the voting numbers? I asked earlier but there was no reply and I can't seem to find anything that answers it online either.

 

[JosieJo]

I'm wondering is it more than a lot of the jurors are torn between murder and manslaughter rather than the usual one or two not being sure on guilt at all ... I suppose this makes it more problematic

 

[C.greek]

In other words

Recap:

Mechanical asphyxia- not excluded
Drowning - not excluded
Hypothermia - not excluded

none of the tell tale signs would necessarily be preserved considering the length of time in the water/ decomposition.

Edit for spelling/grammar mistake

This is incorrect. The way of phrasing is important. The signs of drowning would be there.

 

[Lyall0814]

It feels like it’s usually happened by now!

Only the judge knows when the time is right I think

From Crown Court Trial Part 6 - Verdict — Defence-Barrister.co.uk

When can a majority direction be given?

The Juries Act 1974 requires at least 2 hours to pass between a jury retiring and a majority direction being given, but the convention is to allow at least 2 hours and 10 minutes, to take into account the time it will take any jury to get from the courtroom to the jury room and back.

In practice it is rare for a judge to give a majority direction after such a short period of time.

Much depends on the complexity of the case and the issues involved. In a long and complex case it can be days before a majority direction is given. Often the judge will only give such a direction after discussion with the prosecution and defence dvocates.

Notwithstanding the precise timing of a majority direction, it is extremely important that a jury should never feel under pressure of time to reach a verdict.

 

[Sooty]

So is the judge informed of the voting numbers? I asked earlier but there was no reply and I can't seem to find anything that answers it online either.

Notes about voting numbers
Juries sometimes send the judge a note about their inability to reach a unanimous verdict, or about their voting numbers (i.e. how many wish to find the defendant guilty and how many not guilty). The judge will not inform the prosecution or defence of the content of a note about numbers, but it might prompt the judge to suggest giving a majority direction if the relevant time limit has passed (see more on majority verdicts below).
I found this at defence -barrister.co.uk

hope it helps a bit

 

[C.greek]

I think the judge tells us all we need to know about the pathologist report ..all the speculation in the world will not help

"In relation to the count of murder she told them: “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."

Jury to decide if Libby death was murder, manslaughter or tragedy

No sorry this is not all we need to know. We can definitely discuss the findings and their expert testimony. And just to add(not directed to you!) That I think from my experience in an academic capacity the choice of specific words and phrases is very important. They are very careful what adverbs and adjectives they are using to discuss probabilities.

 

[tigerowl]

The pathologist does not have any bias - they state the facts. And the fact for me here is that drowning usually leaves tell-tale signs in an autopsy which would not be constrained by the level of decomposition and which are not so obvious in this case here. So the defence's scenario that she drowned I think should be disregarded.

I take your point but the pathologist hasn't disregarded it. More what I was saying is that we can all have our own leaning towards what we believe is most likely, but I would have assumed that if the pathologist believed one of the options was more likely than the other based on the evidence then they would have said that. To be honest, I don't know if that is true -but I don't usually follow court cases so this is all quite new to me.

 

[Newthoughts]

No sorry this is not all we need to know. We can definitely discuss the findings and their expert testimony. And just to add(not directed to you!) That I think from my experience in an academic capacity the choice of specific words and phrases is very important. They are very careful what adverbs and adjectives they are using to discuss probabilities.

Yes also from a specifically scientific capacity. There is a large difference between 'not proved conclusively it did or didn't happen' and 'but in my expert opinion it did or didn't'

And their use of language reflects that. Should be listening for those specific Choices of words. If what little we've heard reported is accurate it's there