GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #13

[Chester]

Yes it is. And the penalty is far higher as a result. Therefore the state must feel that it has sufficient evidence to pursue and that supports pre-planning rather than a crime of passion or momentary loss of reason.

I'm afraid that isn't the case manslaughter and murder both carry life sentences. Guidelines indicate that Tabak would severe a minimum of 15 years inside before being eligible for parole should he be found guilty of murder. Current sentencing guidelines indicate that where manslaughter approaches murder the minimum should be the same as if it were murder.

So unless Tabak is trying to say that this was as the result of some kind of mental breakdown (or similar) then it seems at the moment that there is little to gain in prosecuting him for murder.

 

[kINGFISHER]

I doubt that we will ever know the truth now. He can make up any scenario he wants to back up his plea of manslaughter. He can say anything about poor Jo, and nobody will know if he's lying. Sickening. All that stuff about going over to spend time with his family at Christmas and behaving totally normally. If he killed her "accidentally," whatever that means, why didn't he behave like a normal human being and call the police? Why dump her body by the side of the road like garbage?

Because he's made of ice.

Totally agree and what makes it all the more sinister is why was the body not found until Christmas day. I hope this case is exposed to the full.

 

[Chester]

I doubt that we will ever know the truth now. He can make up any scenario he wants to back up his plea of manslaughter. He can say anything about poor Jo, and nobody will know if he's lying. Sickening. All that stuff about going over to spend time with his family at Christmas and behaving totally normally. If he killed her "accidentally," whatever that means, why didn't he behave like a normal human being and call the police? Why dump her body by the side of the road like garbage?

Because he's made of ice.

You would have thought that the fact that his defense can and probably will drag Jo's character through the mud would have been enough for the Crown to accept the guilty plea.

 

[Nikynoo]

Its for the prosecution to prove intent, which will be based on the evidence they have. I agree with other posts - going to trial will only raise a twisted version of events (the only people knowing what truly happened being Jo and Tabak). I do hope that Jo's friends and family gain solace from any trial that takes place - its bound to be a terrible ordeal.

 

[Nikynoo]

You would have thought that the fact that his defense can and probably will drag Jo's character through the mud would have been enough for the Crown to accept the guilty plea.

wouldn't it depend though, on what the prosecution thinks happened?

 

[kINGFISHER]

You would have thought that the fact that his defense can and probably will drag Jo's character through the mud would have been enough for the Crown to accept the guilty plea.

That is assuming there is another side to her character. Maybe that is what his defence thought would happen but the prosecution feel there is more to the case to be exposed.

 

[Cherwell]

Not buying the misunderstanding line either.

Circumstances prevailed where he was confronted imo.

He panicked and reason left him. VT must have felt himself in some sort of jeopardy.

"Circumstances prevailed where he was confronted" - yes, possibly

OR he misread the signals and made a pass at her which was resisted: that's what I meant by a misunderstanding. One thing led to another and he lost control and then panicked, as you say.

 

[bees]

I doubt that we will ever know the truth now. He can make up any scenario he wants to back up his plea of manslaughter. He can say anything about poor Jo, and nobody will know if he's lying. Sickening. All that stuff about going over to spend time with his family at Christmas and behaving totally normally. If he killed her "accidentally," whatever that means, why didn't he behave like a normal human being and call the police? Why dump her body by the side of the road like garbage?

Because he's made of ice.

I'm inclined to agree with you. If he accidentally killed her, he wouldn't necessarily have known she was dead beyond resuscitation and should have called an ambulance.

It's the cool way he behaved after the event that troubles me the most. I can believe he might not have meant to kill her but his subsequent actions demonstrate a very unsavoury character who was also prepared to let someone else be charged for his crime.

 

[notsure]

I'm inclined to agree with you. If he accidentally killed her, he wouldn't necessarily have known she was dead beyond resuscitation and should have called an ambulance.

It's the cool way he behaved after the event that troubles me the most. I can believe he might not have meant to kill her but his subsequent actions demonstrate a very unsavoury character who was also prepared to let someone else be charged for his crime.

I imagine he'll be the same at his trial: clever, cold, logical, and only interested in his own survival. He'll do what it takes to ensure that.

 

[enzeder]

I must say that I'm really surprised that he admitted he killed Joanna.

 

[notsure]

I read that the jurors are to visit Jo's flat during the trial. Is that normal, for jurors to visit victims' homes?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...y-to-manslaughter-over-joanna-yeates-death.do

 

[gotaloton]

Good news (if it can ever be seen as such) for Joanna's family. They will now, at least, have some answers.
There must be a feeling that there is a VERY high chance of a murder charge, hence the decision to reject the manslaughter plea.
IMO.

 

[gotaloton]

I read that the jurors are to visit Jo's flat during the trial. Is that normal, for jurors to visit victims' homes?

Yes, if it's deemed relevant to the trial.

 

[Nikynoo]

I read that the jurors are to visit Jo's flat during the trial. Is that normal, for jurors to visit victims' homes?

only if it's relevant to either parties case. If it is true, then I would imagine this is where the prosecution thinks the crime happened, or the scene is relevant in someway as to motive

 

[bees]

I must say that I'm really surprised that he admitted he killed Joanna.

I think he must have been faced with no alternative eg the weight of evidence was such that he couldn't argue with it. If he'd thought there was a chance of claiming he didn't do it, I'm sure he'd have taken it as his previous actions show he had no intention of giving himself up.

 

[Cherwell]

Prosecutors had wanted the case to be transferred to Winchester but this was rejected by the judge.

I wonder if this is right. One would expect it to be the defence that wanted the case transferred, not the prosecution. Although it would benefit the Yeates parents who live near Winchester.

I wouldn't read too much into visiting "Miss Yeates's flat". The entire ground floor of the building and its grounds is likely to be relevant, so the jury will probably see the whole lot.

 

[Nikynoo]

I wonder if this is right. One would expect it to be the defence that wanted the case transferred, not the prosecution. Although it would benefit the Yeates parents who live near Winchester.

I wouldn't read too much into visiting "Miss Yeates's flat". The entire ground floor of the building and its grounds is likely to be relevant, so the jury will probably see the whole lot.

according to the Guardian, the prosecution requested a move to Winchester because of publicity surrounding the case in Bristol (pretty lame excuse if you ask me seeing as this has been reported and debated intensively nationally!), but the Judge felt the trial could take place in Bristol.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/05/joanna-yeates-neighbour-admits-killing

 

[Chester]

wouldn't it depend though, on what the prosecution thinks happened?

Of course, I feel that there must be more to Tabak's plea than a simple guilty to manslaughter, probably he is trying to claim diminished responsibility due to a psychological condition or a psychotic break due to stress. If that were the case then he could be sent to a hospital and then released as soon as he is better. In some cases that can be a very short amount of time (i.e. a few years). So perhaps that is why they want to present their case to a jury and prove otherwise.

 

[edgedweller]

enzeder - i too am surprised. But glad that he has decided to tell the truth (or at least not denying any part in it). The most respectful thing he can do now is be totally honest.

 

[Cherwell]

according to the Guardian, the prosecution requested a move to Winchester because of publicity surrounding the case in Bristol (pretty lame excuse if you ask me seeing as this has been reported and debated intensively nationally!), but the Judge felt the trial could take place in Bristol.

Yes, but it's usually the defence that wants the trial moved because of local feeling running high and possibly being prejudicial against the defendant.

However, I've remembered that the Yeates family live near Winchester, so there are probably just as many people who feel strongly there, as there would be in Bristol.