GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #12

[veggiefan]

... bail abandoned. Why?

Wasn't it because the crown prosecutor announced that any bail application would be opposed?

Given that only a small proportion of people accused of murder are ever given bail, I guess there was no point in applying once VT's lawyer learnt that the prosecution would oppose bail.

 

[whiterum]

only thing about that theory is....i thought these spy devices were extremely small...cd be placed on insects...therefore not much chance of being noticed...?

I agree with Colombo in thinking that maybe Jo disturbed a person already in the flat...????

Not completely undetectable, otherwise so many people would not be found out.

It could also be that she disturbed an intruder, any number of scenarios
could be plausable. I'm sure we will continue to speculate until we find out the real reason (if ever) why the lovely Jo ended up dead and dumped on Longwood Lane.

 

[veggiefan]

Jo discovered something atrociously shocking - she was silenced. Perhaps he thought with Jo alive - he would be behind bars, lost reputation, girlfriend, job, career, family shame, etc etc.

Firstly, all of that would have depended on him being convinced that JY would call the police if she'd found a camera. She might have done, but she might not have wanted members of the constabulary pooring over videos of her in the nude, and might have instead resolved to tell the landlord what had happened and demand that he ends VT's and TM's tenancy agreement immediately.

Secondly, as the case of the Bath voyeur mentioned up thread shows, it is unlikely that he would have got a prison sentence for being a voyeur, although I agree about the shame and probable job loss.

What would cause him to lose all is to be found guilty of commiting a murder. Would a clever person risk going to jail for life in preferance to collapsing in shame and embarrassment? Only if he'd lost all rational control in the heat of the moment, which is of course possible.

 

[aneurin]

I'm afraid they do, hence the fact that in 60% of all serious crimes, the jury acquits the accused person. And, of course, out of the minority who are found guilty, some are later found to have been wrongly convicted.

I think you've got your stats back to front. It's actually more like 60% of defendants are convicted in Crown Court trials. And in any case, such figures only relate to contested trials. The simple fact is that over 70% of defendants plead guilty, and so there is no trial, merely a hearing to determine the sentence.

 

[veggiefan]

It could also be that she disturbed an intruder, any number of scenarios could be plausable.

If VT is not the guilty party, I've always been attracted by the suggestion that she was followed home (remember the shadowy figures in some of the CCTV footage?). Then, as a previous tenant of the property said he used to do, she left the door on the latch while going to collect the post from the main hallway of the house - intruder sneeks in while she is gone and is lying in wait when she returns.

Much would depend on if the DNA evidence (such as it is) has been linked with VT, or whether the evidence against him is largely circumstantial.

 

[notsure]

If there was a spying device that was big enough for JY to discover it, then it would have been a huge risk for VT to put it there. It would have been only a matter of time before it would be discovered, if not by the tenants, then by the LL when he went in to do re-decorating or maintenance of the property. He could not be sure that he would have the opportunity to go in and remove it when he needed to.

 

[veggiefan]

I think you've got your stats back to front. It's actually more like 60% of defendants are convicted in Crown Court trials.

Sorry, yes you are quite correct. However, the fact that more than a third of defendants are found not guilty does indicate that evidence which the CPS believes is strong enough for a charge turns out not to be strong enough for a conviction.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Wasn't it because the crown prosecutor announced that any bail application would be opposed?

Hi again veggiefan (and I'm a veg fan too - each time I see your nick I imagine a delicious basket of leafy green organics, crunchy fresh roots - blueberries, strawbs and herbs to finish, lol).

Yes, the CP advised they'd oppose bail; this is common in all serious offense trials: sometimes bail *is* granted, under special circumstances. Rare, I agree. However, no motion for bail was filed.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Firstly, all of that would have depended on him being convinced that JY would call the police if she'd found a camera. She might have done, but she might not have wanted members of the constabulary pooring over videos of her in the nude, and might have instead resolved to tell the landlord what had happened and demand that he ends VT's and TM's tenancy agreement immediately.

Fair comment; I respect you and others may react this way. I, on the other hand would report him and make sure he is not just last seen exiting the building - but the area, too. I'd be horrified; I'd feel dirty, exposed, vulnerable and completely aghast - totally shocked.

What would cause him to lose all is to be found guilty of commiting a murder. Would a clever person risk going to jail for life in preferance to collapsing in shame and embarrassment? Only if he'd lost all rational control in the heat of the moment, which is of course possible.

That's a good question: how many times have criminals "wished they could turn the clock back"? You ask a wuestion that's rung through the halls of justices for centuries: "Why?". There's never a reason for murder; hence the word "senseless" oft precedes the act. Often these types of criminals believe they're "too clever"; believe they know exactly what to do. Also, there's a first time for everything. I don't think Tabak set out that night with murder on his mind. The final act became (to him) the only option. He went through a severe shock and panic after suffering "Fear of Loss" - i.e. being discovered (IMHO) and murder was reflex to that fear. Is this premeditation? Yes - because PreMed murder may be but a nano-second before the act.

This theory combines, in my speculating, that (IF if, if this theory is real) Jo wintnessed something hugely unsavoury. To silence her testimony, he killed her. (Interfering with witnesses).

IS this what happened? We'll never know.... until trial.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

If there was a spying device that was big enough for JY to discover it, then it would have been a huge risk for VT to put it there. It would have been only a matter of time before it would be discovered, if not by the tenants, then by the LL when he went in to do re-decorating or maintenance of the property. He could not be sure that he would have the opportunity to go in and remove it when he needed to.

Fair comment, notsure. However, we're (Deckard, me and a.n.other?) simply speculating as to what could have happened in such a dramatically short space of time when Jo returned - that would end up with her life being snatched moments later. I join the dots. This is Tabak's career. He's sued to setting this up; watching people without them knowing, for years. Who's to say this was just going to be a "weekend" thing that went wrong? We don't know. But something, IMO, alerted Jo and that same something ... made Tabak panic and react.

Perhaps she returned earlier from the party than he anticipated? Hear something in her ceiling (or... somewhere)?

Perhaps - who's to know - when TM returned, VT said "I've made you something to eat...". And low and behold it was a pizza? If not eaten that evening …, then perhaps the next day? Is this reason for a sobbing female to call A&S?

Maybe he borrowed CJ's car that night - placed the body somewhere else in the hopes of stealing time to move it to an intended "eternal" vanishing point?

WHO knows? the above is sheer speculation.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Very scary, eh whiterum? Completely undetected most of the time. These "voyeurs" are extremely clever; but, as this article shows ... THEY DO GET CAUGHT!

Methinks Jo caught on to something as horrific. That, I do.

Check this out. It seems that if you use the Public Loo, in Asda, Starbucks, or anywhere, you could find yourself being the star feature on some shady internet site. After reading this I'm holding it in until I get home.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Voyeurism-Number-Arrested-And-Charged-Doubles-In-Four-Years-Since-Sexual-Offences-Act-2004/Article/201001215517264?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_7

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Sorry, yes you are quite correct. However, the fact that more than a third of defendants are found not guilty does indicate that evidence which the CPS believes is strong enough for a charge turns out not to be strong enough for a conviction.

Fair comment, veggie fan. Fair comment ...

 

[naturally suspicious]

just for interest which other sites are still covering this story?

 

[Deckard]

The voyeur gone wrong theory ticks a lot of boxes for me at this point. notsure brought up a great point that JY may have had good reason to guess VT was not home alone when she went round in indignation making her feel safer.

I was wondering what point could have been picked up in 30 minutes in an undisturbed flat that GR didn't notice immediately that suggested an abduction to those who knew her intimately.

If JY had been drinking for a couple of hours could it be something as seemingly innocuous as an unflushed toilet? After spotting a hidden peephole she may have wanted to act at once.

Although from a psychological viewpoint I think it is more likely for VT to act if the maelstrom was brought to his door so he had to deal with the situation whether he wanted to or not there is one thing that niggles me.

The keys.

Imo a man is more likely to set keys on the nearest flat surface rather than have the peace of mind to place them in a bag?

A voyeuristic thread may have even predated VT's occupational interest in people monitoring. Perhaps he had built up more material than that on Canynge Rd and didn't want everything to unravel?

The DNA as others have said will be crucial as evidence of any device and or laptop will probably be long gone.

 

[Cherwell]

intruder sneeks in while she is gone and is lying in wait when she returns.

But what for? Nothing was stolen and she wasn't raped.

If there was a spying device that was big enough for JY to discover it, then it would have been a huge risk for VT to put it there. It would have been only a matter of time before it would be discovered

Precisely.

what could have happened in such a dramatically short space of time when Jo returned - that would end up with her life being snatched moments later

We don't know when she was killed. The only indication that something may have happened as soon as she reached home is the report of a scream, and it is by no means certain that this sound had anything to do with JY.

 

[veggiefan]

I join the dots. This is Tabak's career. He's sued to setting this up; watching people without them knowing, for years.

I can see the attraction of linking his job with a possible hidden camera, but as I understand it "people flow analysis" is not about watching individuals without their knowledge. It is about analysing architectural plans to deduce where problems might occur when the building is constructed. For instance, insufficient width of corridor leading to a transport hub or fire exit, a pinch point if two sets of lifts face each other too closely, or a potential bottleneck in a shopping mall if the routes to two major department stores cross each other.

(Thanks for the vegetable support!)

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

We don't know when she was killed. The only indication that something may have happened as soon as she reached home is the report of a scream, and it is by no means certain that this sound had anything to do with JY.

Indeed, what you write may be indeed be true.

However, Theresa Yeates encouraged us to become "armchair detectives". That one-liner may have been the tipping point from "typical sleuths" entering forums as we do - to the rapid race across the 'Net this story flew into. Who knows? However, once this "seemingly nice, bespectacled, lanky, quiet, wealthy, intelligent, PhD engineer/architect" - Jo's neighbour to boot - was charged - hundreds of us sat bolt upright in those invited armchairs.

Why? Why? and ... WHY?


Hence the speculation. So long as said speculation is logical, not impossible and is devoid of "aliens, frame-ups, etc" then that's precisely why we're here. To throw this hot-potato back and forth. On a previous site, some poster actually believed Jo's *cat* could probably have indicated what happened. After that post and another, lashing out at British justice ... I just thought "groaaaan ... I know where this is going and I'm leaving while I'm still sane", lol, lol.

My theory is definitely NOT "what happened" per se. It's been *my* theory since Tabak's first court date and I posted as much a few weeks ago (I've been too regularly shot down in flames - that's ok, too).

I'm delighted Deckard concurs; I daresay Deckard knows the site I'm referring to. (O/T: I do so wish Jeddah99 & Archbold would join this site! One was a "he did it" the other "he didn't do it". BOTH presented immense style, logic, good humour and decent collaboration among posters. Similar to what's going on here. Nice, neat ... intelligent.

Let's see what unfolds as we progress

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

just for interest which other sites are still covering this story?

Hi there ...

This one is where I was at mccannexposure.wordpress . com. I did not post the link as this may be against TOS.

Not even hovered since I last signed out.... ghoulish gangsters posting angry and probably libelous scams against known professionals, clearly without their said knowledge, was not up my street.

Nor was the idea erm, that "cats" should have been interviewed or would have "known" what went on. Cats are clever and wonderful but they're not exactly about to meeuw out to dad "Oi - the milkman was 'round again, today, mate..."

When cat's views and blatant smear campaigns were deemed "OK" ... I departed. It's a great blog - we had some good ideas, banter and yes, a few laughs; the owner is most decent; couple of pirhana dive in and kill posters for daring to believe Tabak is guilty - but heck - I'm a 10 year veteran at this; posts like that bounce off my radar, lol.

 

[Deckard]

I can see the attraction of linking his job with a possible hidden camera, but as I understand it "people flow analysis" is not about watching individuals without their knowledge. It is about analysing architectural plans to deduce where problems might occur when the building is constructed. For instance, insufficient width of corridor leading to a transport hub or fire exit, a pinch point if two sets of lifts face each other too closely, or a potential bottleneck in a shopping mall if the routes to two major department stores cross each other.

(Thanks for the vegetable support!)

I have found the thesis in question but it may take some time to read through it.

Here is a link http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200910371.pdf

 

[Deckard]

I'm delighted Deckard concurs; I daresay Deckard knows the site I'm referring to. (O/T: I do so wish Jeddah99 & Archbold would join this site! One was a "he did it" the other "he didn't do it". BOTH presented immense style, logic, good humour and decent collaboration among posters. Similar to what's going on here. Nice, neat ... intelligent.

Let's see what unfolds as we progress

Sorry, don't know the other site but seems we're on the same page here PolkSaladAnnie.