Off Topic Crime and the court case...

So, what do you know that we don't?

 

That isn't what I said.

 

We cannot imagine the pain and perhaps now the relief of the family... that relief maybe even heightened when sentencing has taken place... let the twat wear pink inside... Bless you Libby and your family and thank you to those asked to return the right verdict having had to sit through a semblance of what she had to go through... X

 

I agree in some respects. However, the public is informed by the media, it is vital that society has an understanding of the case laid before the court and jury. It is understandable that there is a degree of speculation, but there should not be any analysis of the evidence. Everything said in open court is reportable unless the bench states that it is restricted. The transcripts are also available and in the public domain, although you have to apply for them as far as I remember and this may be an expensive process as you have to pay for each page. One of the reasons some convicted criminals go to trial is that they are entitled to a copy of the transcripts and in a prison the one in sex cases are of high value.

 

I have to say that I really do hope that there is no tv documentary of this case at anytime in the future.
He deserves to rot in jail. I have never been so pleased to by a guilty verdict, but the thought of a retrial or not guilty made me cold..

 

Meaning that you might well be right but your post made you seem like a right smart-arse. Which I'm sure you're not btw...

 

When is the sentencing? Give him 40 years minimum.

 

Tomorrow apparently.

 

11 to 1....sounds as if one of the jury stuck it out for a week.

 

Speaking outside court, Mrs Squire thanked supporters but said Relowicz's conviction "changes nothing for us, there is no closure".

"We don't get to have Libby back and our lives don't revert back to normal," she said.

"Libby will always be with us and we are all so proud of our beautiful, caring, wonderful girl.

"And, although she has been physically taken from us, the memories we have and the love we share will never be."

RIP Libby

 

Thankfully it's all done now and he's guilty. None of it is very satisfactory of course. Nothing brings the poor girl back. It's a sickening tale from start to finish. I hate the term 'closure' but hope that this brings something by way of comfort to her poor family.

 

The verdict was 12-0 on the rape charge.

On the murder charge, it was 11-1.

To quote myself "There always one, isn't there"?

 

I agree, the term 'closure' has been overdone in recent years. I think people find ways of dealing with their grief and as each year goes by the pain becomes easier to deal with.

 

Just reading hdm
His original 8 years for voyeurism etc was reduced on appeal to 5!! Kinell

 

I've got to admit that I always find terms like 'closure' and phrases like 'they'll be able to move on with their lives' somewhat glib and remote from the actual, real hell that parents, relatives and friends go through in these circumstances.

Also 'take comfort in the fact that he's locked away for a long, long time and cannot hurt anyone else'.

All the glib statements are probably true, but the problem with infinite loss is that nothing that subsequently happens can close the gap. The magnitude of loss can never diminish.

Many people cope with it of course. I hope Lisa, Russell, their family and Libby's friends are all able to find a way of doing this.

That bastard killed Libby but he's also destroyed a lot of other people's happiness.

I trust the judge will sentence the bastard with the upmost severity tomorrow.




The guilty verdicts remove something else which has been troubling people. The bastard claimed that Libby had sex with him consensually. This verdict removes that slight from her. She didn't. She was raped and murdered. His defence on this point was odious, callous and deeply upsetting for all who loved Libby. She did not consent. She was not a willing participant.

Martin Amis writes eloquently about exactly this point in his book Experience, regarding Fred West's claim that Amis' cousin Lucy Partington was a willing participant in his sex games. She wasn't but West's cowardly suicide denied the family seeing that defence exposed as a lie in court.

The bastard's conviction removes that doubt from Libby's case.

She didn't want to have sex with you, you ****.

It wasn't willing.

You raped and killed her.


May you rot in misery.



RIP Libby. x

 

Very good post Ernie

 

And there lies half the problem Chazz. 8 years deemed too harsh for a self confessed sex pest..

 

Maybe the lady judge will factor that in...

 

I wonder if this will apply

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/sentencing-dangerous-offenders

Introduction
The court has available to it powers to impose an extended sentence or a life sentence pursuant to the “dangerous offender” provisions of Chapter 5 Criminal Justice Act 2003. All references in this guidance are to this legislation unless otherwise provided. This legal guidance sets out the principles governing this sentencing exercise so that the prosecution can, where appropriate, assist the court.

Approach
The following is proposed, see also Burinskas [2014] EWCA Crim 334:

1. These provisions are engaged when the defendant is convicted either of a “specified offence” or a “serious offence” and the defendant is deemed “dangerous”:

• A “specified offence” is a violent, sexual or terrorism offence listed in Schedule 15 Criminal Justice Act 2003. This includes a wide range of indictable offences which fall within these three categories. Part 1 of the schedule lists violent offences; Part 2 sexual offences and; Part 3 terrorist offences.
• A “serious offence” is (i) a specified offence which is (ii) punishable by ten years’ imprisonment or more: section 224(2).
• An offender is dangerous if “the court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further specified offences”, a formulation which appears in sections 225-228.

2. Accordingly, there is a distinction between offences which are specified but not serious, and those which are specified and serious.

3. When a defendant is convicted of a specified but not serious offence i.e. attracting a sentence of less than ten years’ imprisonment, the question for the court is whether to pass an extended sentence if the defendant is deemed dangerous, or otherwise a determinate sentence.

4. In respect of serious offences, the following approach may be taken. The first question is whether the defendant is dangerous.

5. If yes, and the offence carries a maximum life sentence, the court should consider if the seriousness of the offence merits a life sentence: section 225. If so, it must impose that sentence. The court should also state whether section 224A applies at the same time. The same provision applies for those under 18 save that the reference is to detention for life: section 226.

6. This assessment of seriousness should, per Burinskas, consider:

• The seriousness of the offence itself, on its own or with other offences associated with it;
• The defendant’s previous convictions
• The level of danger to the public posed by the defendant and whether there is a reliable estimate of the length of time they will remain a danger; and
• The available alternative sentences.

7. If however:

• This assessment has concluded that the serious offence does not merit a life sentence or detention for life, or
• The defendant is not dangerous, or
• The offence does not carry a life sentence

 

RIP Libby

Rot in your cell Relowicz's ....I hope the big boys find you in prison & make you suffer what you did to Libby.....