GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #15

weeeva said:

I remember reading that article. It also says in the same article that neighbours said that TM had not been seen around there for some time, and that she and VT may have separated. That turned out to be wrong.
Why did the defence not question VT about how he came to know that GR was away? I mean it would be in VT's favour, if JY told him after she supposedly invited him in. Maybe it has been dealt with in court, and we just don't know about it yet. It's driving me nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!
:banghead::furious:

Click to expand...

Remember VT was away for six weeks TM was maybe staying elsewhere for a while and they took it as they were separated.

Neighbours on Canynge Road yesterday claimed Tabak had returned to his flat on the Friday Miss Yeates disappeared. It is understood he spoke to ex-teacher Chris Jefferies, who had helped her boyfriend Greg Reardon start his car before a trip to Sheffield for the weekend.

A neighbour said: ‘When [Vincent] got home on his bike, Chris spoke to him on the drive and told him about what happened with the car.’

Click to expand...

This rings true to me since the trial has since disclosed that VT did in fact come home on his bicycle around 7 pm. that friday night. The neighbour was close enough to the driveway to hear the conversation, so it could have been a resident or visitor to the block. Or a neighbour involved in the conversation.

If not CJ that neighbour should have been called as a witness, or maybe since they were not personally identified just want to keep out of it .

Curious Alice said:

Are there any women on this forum that would invite a stranger, albeit one she MIGHT recognise, into their home whilst they were alone, at night ? I know I would not.

Click to expand...

This has made me think: JY knew there was a couple living next door. Now if she saw the male half of the couple walking past, I don't think she would invite him in for a drink. For all she knew, his girlfriend was at home too. I think he invited himself in, using B as a pretext.

No, as much as I like my next door neighbours (a retired couple I have known for 10 years), if I saw the man walking past on his own at night, I would not invite him in for a drink. I might invite both of them in if they were passing and I were alone.

bijoux said:

....

I know aneurin has tried to drum it into my head in varying ways and I finally have it! He/she must be very frustrated with me.

Click to expand...

Aneurin is quite happy.

bijoux said:

....

Still one thing niggling. Why didn't WC opt for a diminished responsibility defense?

Click to expand...

Because he can only work with what he's got. Defence counsel aren't supposed to advise their client's on how best to 'get off' a murder charge. So if you like it, it's wasn't up to WC, but rather down to VT.

bijoux said:

....
And if VT is convicted of murder, could he ever appeal on the grounds of diminished responsibility assuming a psychiatric evaluation or new information showed he had a pre-existing mental illness at the time of the killing?

Click to expand...

Yes. I believe that is possible, although I suspect you'd need 'new evidence'. I know it happened in the case of Sara Thornton, initially convicted of murder, she subsequently managed to get that downgraded to DR manslaughter.

OK I've worked out how it was done.

What you do is this. You take one female victim, you take hold of her wrists, and force them above her head as you push her back against a wall. You can then use your arms to pin her arms against the wall, leaving both your hands free; one of which you can place on her mouth, and the other against her throat. If at the same time, you place your body at right angles to hers and thrust one knee between her legs, you can pin her lower body against the wall. She can then kick as much as she likes, but she can't make contact, and she can't move her arms, because you're using your entire body weight to pin them to the wall. And of course, all you need is 20 seconds worth of pressure to finish her off.

Now you're going to leave grip marks on her wrists, and it's possible, during the intitial struggle as you grapple with her wrists, that you might give her face a bash and give her a nose bleed, whilst she might well end up with other bruises and marks on her body, but most importantly she can't scratch or kick you, so she can't really injure or mark you. Which is a very good thing if you intend being seen in public soon afterwards. After you've popped home and changed naturally - you don't want to be seen with any blood on your shirt after all.

Now I've tried this and it works. OK, I left out the bloody nose bit. And the actual throttling to death bit as well, now that you come to mention it. There are limits to experimentation. But it does work, and it would appear to me to be a very effective method of homicide. However, I'm not sure how you'd come across it by accident.

otto said:

The absence of blood in the flat is a problematic. VT tells a story to explain everything ... there's something about the back pathway that he had to explain. He said he bought rock salt, presumably because the back path was slippery and he said he found it slippery when he carried Joanna to his flat. He said that he had to put her down because she was heavy. Was he countering evidence found on the back pathway ... evidence like perhaps he attacked her there, she ran back to her flat and he ran after her ... that's when the coat rack was knocked over? Was she running into her bedroom and that's where she was killed? Why did he take her to his flat? Did he really do that and if so why? It would be safer for him to take his bike cover to her flat, wrap her up and put her in the car. He's a people flow person ... it makes no sense that he first took her to his apartment to wrap her in a bike cover and later took her to the car. Did he attack her close to 9, per screams and timeline, but he kept her in his flat and toyed with the body for 30 minutes before he contacted his girlfriend, and then he went to the grocery store? Why is he connecting 9:30 to the murder ... unless he is trying to avoid that 30 minute time period between the murder and the shopping trip.

I think most people would accept that he was in a panic and frantic for those 30 minutes ... but from VT we have an attempt to change the time of death to 30 minutes later. Why does he feel the need to explain or eliminate that 30 minute interval if everything was on the up and up? After an accidental murder, 30 minutes are easily understood as complete panic ... but not for VT ... he simply went back to his flat, texted his girlfriend, put his neighbour in his car and bought beer and crisps ("crisis", per VT ... quite the Freudian slip). Still, there are 30 minutes missing in VT's accounting.

Click to expand...

If you believe the case for the prosecution, JY was killed very shortly after she got home. That doesn't look great for VT. It suggests that he was waiting for her to get home and planned to have some sort of contact with her. (It's not really relevant to whether he murdered her though. To prove murder, the prosecution need to convince the jury that he knew, when he had his hand round her neck that it would seriously hurt or kill her).

Also, if you believe the prosecution timeline, the text sent to TM at 9:25pm was after JY was dead. It was a calculated attempt to show that he was quietly sitting at home, bored without TM there.

If the jury find him not guilty of murder, and I'm guessing here, it may be that a lot of what the prosecution are suggesting could be aimed at influencing the judge when he deals out the sentence for manslaughter. (e.g pre-planned, calculating, cover story etc etc)

If however you believe the timeline the defence suggests, VT sent the text to TM at 9:25pm and set out for Asda. On passing JY's window, she waved him into her flat. He misread her allegedly flirtacious comment as a come on, went to kiss her, which according to VT was in no way a sexual activity. She screamed and in trying to calm her down she went limp and died not having put up any kind of struggle.

In his version of events, when he went to Asda and texted TM at ~10:30pm he was in a blind panic. He just picked up on his original planned shopping trip and "reached out" to TM

As for taking her body to his flat, he couldn't know that JY wasn't expecting guests. Someone could turn up at any moment and find her body. He had to move it quickly. His car was on the road. He couldn't carry her straight to the car. He had to move the car round the back near to his flat and wasn't going to risk leaving her in her flat whilst he did that.

Did he put her down when carrying her to his flat or did he drop her? If he dropped her perhaps that might account for the blood. It would also explain the need for the rock salt and the fact that there hasn't been any mention of blood in the flat. It might also explain why he put her inside the cycle bag so as not to get blood in the car.

ETA: We don't know for sure there was no blood in the flat. It may be a fact that is not contested by the defence so there's possibly no need to prove it in court

This case is bugging me. I'm wondering why anybody would even take VT's utterances seriously. He tried to cover up the crime, lied to his own family and the police, tried to incriminate his LL. When it was proved that he did it, he just made up a story that gave him the best chance of getting the least damning charge. How can anything he says be believed? Of course he will not tell the truth: what benefit would that be to him?

I always thought we would never find out what really happened that night. That's a bad thing, but worse would be if VT is found not guilty of murder. That would mean that all anybody would have to do is to say that they didn't mean to kill their victim, and we're just supposed to take their word for it.

Sammyme He doesn't believe there is anything wrong with him and presumably he doesn't want to saddle himself with some tag of mental illness, disorder or suchlike that might get him put away into special hospital or a mental institution perhaps indefinitely if considered dangerous and maybe untreatable.

Click to expand...

That is what concerns me if he gets away with manslaughter . Even with murder he could be given so many years and only serve a portion of those .So we have to have some faith in the Judge when he hand s out the sentence?

notsure said:

This has made me think: JY knew there was a couple living next door. Now if she saw the male half of the couple walking past, I don't think she would invite him in for a drink. For all she knew, his girlfriend was at home too.

Click to expand...

Ah, but she might have assumed his gf was at home, and therefore felt OK about approaching him. Don't forget she was giving a party in a few days time, what more natural than to invite the neighbours? That could have been why she approached him, if she did. I'm not saying she did invite him in, but I don't have any difficulty believing that she might have done.

aneurin said:

You take one female victim, you take hold of her wrists, and force them above her head as you push her back against a wall. You can then use your arms to pin her arms against the wall, leaving both your hands free; one of which you can place on her mouth, and the other against her throat. If at the same time, you place your body at right angles to hers and thrust one knee between her legs, you can pin her lower body against the wall. She can then kick as much as she likes, but she can't make contact, and she can't move her arms, because you're using your entire body weight to pin them to the wall.

Click to expand...

I can't see how this would be possible in a kitchen with fitted cupboards and worktops, so it casts further doubt on his claim that it took place in the kitchen.

veggiefan said:

Frankly, I don't believe the story about photography at all. Conditions were icy, but there was no significant fresh snow until the early hours of the next morning. In any case, it was totally dark when VT claimed he went out to photograph something.

Click to expand...

Confirmed. Sunset was at approx 16.00 hours on the 17th December 2010. Why would you decide to go out to take photos of snow in the dark on a Friday evening when fresh snow was forecast and you had the weekend ahead? VT apparently didn't take any photographs because the snow was "dirty". But he'd only just got back home, so he would already have seen what the snow was like.

Robin Hood said:

The CCTV footage shows no snow, IMO VT needed a reason to be out, snooping and possibly perving through windows.

Click to expand...

Yes, one of the signs of a predatory stalker

Cherwell said:

.....
I can't see how this would be possible in a kitchen with fitted cupboards and worktops, so it casts further doubt on whether it took place in the kitchen as he claims.

Click to expand...

Well you could be right. But I did test this in my kitchen, which is not that much bigger than the one in question, and is similarly festooned with fitted cupboards and worktops. You just need one flat surface that is about two foot wide and six foot high. The back of a door would be fine, or a floor-to-ceiling type fitted cupboard.

Edit: Now that I think of it, where was that broken pedestal (?) that GR noted?

Clio said:

I also believe the snow didn't fall until the early hours of the 18th. If you look at the CCTV images of JY in the street, there is no snow

The reverend said it was frosty and slippy
From Julia Reid

Prosecution witness father George Henwood was walking his dog in Clifton on dec 17.
Father Henwood describes the frosty evening on 17 dec. At the junction of canynge road he walked on the road and saw a woman
Father Henwood thinks it was #Joannayeates - also walking on the road as it was icy. He said 'it's slippy isn't it'. She said 'yes it is.

Click to expand...

That's what he said to Joanna. I am not referring to that or disputing that. I am talking about a report I read where he specifically mentioned snow.

Sammyme said:

That's what he said to Joanna. I am not referring to that or disputing that. I am talking about a report I read where he specifically mentioned snow.

Click to expand...

Oh I hadn't read that. I was also going by the CCTV of JY outside Waitrose but I guess it could have snowed elsewhere other than the towncentre.

I just don't believe this story about going out to take photos of snow in the dark, immediately after getting home then not having any photos to prove it "because the snow was dirty"

Clio said:

...
Did he put her down when carrying her to his flat or did he drop her? If he dropped her perhaps that might account for the blood. It would also explain the need for the rock salt and the fact that there hasn't been any mention of blood in the flat. It might also explain why he put her inside the cycle bag so as not to get blood in the car.

ETA: We don't know for sure there was no blood in the flat. It may be a fact that is not contested by the defence so there's possibly no need to prove it in court

Click to expand...

As far as blood is concerned, my assumption would be that JY's nose was injured during the final struggle when she and VT were 'up close and personal', so that whatever blood there was would have been soaked up by her clothing or his. And then she was dead. Hence no blood in the flat.

Clio said:

Oh I hadn't read that. I was also going by the CCTV of JY outside Waitrose but I guess it could have snowed elsewhere other than the towncentre.
I just don't believe this story about going out to take photos in the dark, immediately after getting home then not having any photos to prove it "because the snow was dirty"

Click to expand...

Yes, snow lies in the side streets more than the main streets or areas of heavy pedestrian use such as entrances to supermarkets.

VT also mentioned the snow. I know he lies but as far as I know, he wasn't challenged by anyone saying there was no snow.

He may well have made up the story of the photographs as a cover for snooping about Joanna's flat.

Sammyme said:

Whatever happened, gripping wrists so as to cause marks and injury suggests to me force, coercion, restraint. Was he gripping her wrists in trying to pin her down and overcome her? We may never know but clearly there was something going on that was a great deal more than merely offering to kiss someone who he thought wanted a kiss. It is as baffling as ever to understand what he embarked upon that night and why he killed a young woman. His own story of events doesn't explain it.

Click to expand...

I am beginning to suspect in my heart that he intended to rape her, I think possibly he did strangle her on accident trying to stop her from screaming and fighting off the attack. but this doesnt make sense because he was her NEIGHBOR. if he left her alive, she could obviously rat him out. maybe he intended to kill her in the end, but not when it actually occured.

I dont want to think this. I dont want him to get a manslaughter sentence. forgive me but here in the UK most of the time a manslaughter sentence is a drop in the bucket. it's barely 3 years with good behaviour.

in the US in my state at least, a death that occurs during the commission of a felony (in my scenario, the felony would be the rape) would still get a murder charge. it isnt the case here, is it, even if the prosecution could prove VT intended to rape her?

aneurin said:

Well you could be right. But I did test this in my kitchen, which is not that much bigger than the one in question, and is similarly festooned with fitted cupboards and worktops. You just need one flat surface that is about two foot wide and six foot high. The back of a door would be fine, or a floor-to-ceiling type fitted cupboard.

Edit: Now that I think of it, where was that broken pedestal (?) that GR noted?

Click to expand...

The chipped green plastic pedestal with a pair of JY's undies on it was in the hall I believe

2goldfish said:

I am beginning to suspect in my heart that he intended to rape her, I think possibly he did strangle her on accident trying to stop her from screaming and fighting off the attack. but this doesnt make sense because he was her NEIGHBOR. if he left her alive, she could obviously rat him out. maybe he intended to kill her in the end, but not when it actually occured.

I dont want to think this. I dont want him to get a manslaughter sentence. forgive me but here in the UK most of the time a manslaughter sentence is a drop in the bucket. it's barely 3 years with good behaviour.

Click to expand...

It depends. You can get life for manslaughter.

2goldfish said:

in the US in my state at least, a death that occurs during the commission of a felony (in my scenario, the felony would be the rape) would still get a murder charge. it isnt the case here, is it, even if the prosecution could prove VT intended to rape her?

Click to expand...

Felony murder was abolished by the Homicide Act 1957 - (quite possibly only in England and Wales; the Scots tend to do things differently, and in NI things take longer.) - where it's referred to as 'constructive malice'.

Clio said:

The chipped green plastic pedestal with a pair of JY's undies on it was in the hall I believe

Click to expand...

Then by the application of Occam's razor I'd go for the hall.

aneurin said:

OK I've worked out how it was done.

What you do is this. You take one female victim, you take hold of her wrists, and force them above her head as you push her back against a wall. You can then use your arms to pin her arms against the wall, leaving both your hands free; one of which you can place on her mouth, and the other against her throat. If at the same time, you place your body at right angles to hers and thrust one knee between her legs, you can pin her lower body against the wall. She can then kick as much as she likes, but she can't make contact, and she can't move her arms, because you're using your entire body weight to pin them to the wall. And of course, all you need is 20 seconds worth of pressure to finish her off.

Now you're going to leave grip marks on her wrists, and it's possible, during the intitial struggle as you grapple with her wrists, that you might give her face a bash and give her a nose bleed, whilst she might well end up with other bruises and marks on her body, but most importantly she can't scratch or kick you, so she can't really injure or mark you. Which is a very good thing if you intend being seen in public soon afterwards. After you've popped home and changed naturally - you don't want to be seen with any blood on your shirt after all.

Now I've tried this and it works. OK, I left out the bloody nose bit. And the actual throttling to death bit as well, now that you come to mention it. There are limits to experimentation. But it does work, and it would appear to me to be a very effective method of homicide. However, I'm not sure how you'd come across it by accident.

Click to expand...

As in the old song, Dem Bones, the thigh bone is connected to the knee bone, so the arms are connected to the hands, which made me wonder how do you manage all that? Just how free are your hands when your arms are engaged in pinning someone's arms and how do you manage to use your hands to do two other separate actions without dislodging your arms from their pinning hold? And then keep your legs in a certain position and hold as well?