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

[mrbond]

Well, no actually.

So anyway, basically what you're saying is this, 'I might be wrongly convicted of murder because the criminal justice system will misinterpret some scientific evidence.' Well that's perfectly true ... stuff happens. But I'm not so sure that I'd be that worried about being convicted for murder just because I'd been dancing with the murder victim shortly before her death. (There is at least one person who danced with Melanie Hall in a nightclub shortly before her murder in 1996, and they're still free and unconvicted.) I think you should more worried about being wrongly convicted because of dodgy witness IDs or the application of the common purpose doctrine. That's far more likely to get you a season ticket to HMP Wakefield.

It was quite clear what I was insinuating. You do have faith in the system, I don't. Anyway I'll accept you last post as being sound as you do seem to have a good knowledge of detection and courts better than myself.

 

[mrbond]

I presume the first suspect arrested is still on police bail. If so, it's been a while.

Are you living on the moon?

 

[whiterum]

Sorry I am thinking you know which one I mean but you may not.

I know exactly who you mean Kingfisher and the more we learn of what really goes on behind the scenes nothing would surprise me, absolutely nothing or no-one can be ruled out. Everyone’s theory of what could have happened is just as plausible as the next. It seems nowadays, who can be trusted but unfortunately, as you say we have no other option. The so-called anonymous crying woman must have been holding on to major evidence but where was her conscience when she apparently let an innocent suspect suffer for so long. Can the word of a person who has allowed that to continue really be trusted. Also the parents have given many heart wrenching pleas but had this particular one not suddenly pricked her so called conscience would she have said nothing of what she knew?

It is all a bit fishy to say the least.

 

[Myserty64]

Sorry bond I missed the news on CJ.

VT gets his day in court eventually. I'm waiting for the trial to see what evidence the prosecution case is based on.
I can't see the point on speculating about the case on the scraps of information that are in the public arena.

 

[kINGFISHER]

I know exactly who you mean Kingfisher and the more we learn of what really goes on behind the scenes nothing would surprise me, absolutely nothing or no-one can be ruled out. Everyone’s theory of what could have happened is just as plausible as the next. It seems nowadays, who can be trusted but unfortunately, as you say we have no other option. The so-called anonymous crying woman must have been holding on to major evidence but where was her conscience when she apparently let an innocent suspect suffer for so long. Can the word of a person who has allowed that to continue really be trusted. Also the parents have given many heart wrenching pleas but had this particular one not suddenly pricked her so called conscience would she have said nothing of what she knew?

It is all a bit fishy to say the least.

I take that point but she may have been too frightened to come forward earlier, she may have known of connections to that house.

What I do find unusual is that the girlfriend is sticking by. Surely in normal circumstances if was blatant intent then you would run a mile from that person.
Unless she knows he is innocent or he claims diminished responsibilities through health issues or has been set up although a part of it , or even both party to it.

Whatever we don't live in a just world and afraid there won't be a truthful conclusion to this case as time goes on people s anger will cool off until the next case that the tragedy of it.

 

[aneurin]

It was quite clear what I was insinuating. You do have faith in the system, I don't. Anyway I'll accept you last post as being sound as you do seem to have a good knowledge of detection and courts better than myself.

OK fair enough.

Although I don't necessarily have any particular 'faith in the system' as such. I do think that the CJS in England and Wales works most of the time, but it is run by people, and people make mistakes.

 

[aneurin]

We are into March. Why hasn't VT's legal team applied for bail? If the case against him is as weak as some suggest then surely a bail application is a given.

The authorities have always been somewhat reluctant to grant bail in murder cases, particularly since the Weddell case. I wouldn't presume anything regarding the strength of the case against VT purely on the lack of any bail application. It is not unknown for individuals to be charged with murder and to be held on remand for months only then to be acquitted of the crime. The CPS may well be of the opinion that they have enough evidence to secure a conviction, but they've been wrong before.

What I do find unusual is that the girlfriend is sticking by.

After Steve Wright was arrested his girlfriend proclaimed his innocence and further claimed that she could provide him with alibis for the murders. Goodness knows what she thought after his conviction for all five murders. James Hanratty's brother still thinks he's innocent even though we have DNA evidence that nails his guilt. Look around the interweb and you'll find plenty of people proclaiming the innocence of their 'poor little Peter' who has been unjustly convicted in circumstances where the rest of us might beg to differ. People often have a difficulty in excepting the fact that their nearest and dearest are indeed killers.

The so-called anonymous crying woman must have been holding on to major evidence but where was her conscience when she apparently let an innocent suspect suffer for so long. Can the word of a person who has allowed that to continue really be trusted. Also the parents have given many heart wrenching pleas but had this particular one not suddenly pricked her so called conscience would she have said nothing of what she knew?

Well it depends on what you mean by "evidence". The statement by Teresa and David Yeates that apparently triggered the crying woman call went as follows;

"Do you know anyone that hasn't been shocked or disturbed? Has anyone you know had an unusual or inexplicable reaction? Was their behaviour unusual on the week-end of 17/18/19th December, or throughout the past three weeks? Do you know someone who has been behaving out of character either by actions, or what is said - or not said? Do you know someone who has inexplicably become reclusive, quiet or vocal? As mentioned above, scenarios abound regarding Jo. Has someone tried to impress on you a scenario which has been inconsistent with the information released by the police at that time - and refused to change it?"

I think that's the profiler talking. I think that's a carefully targetted appeal that triggered an 'Oh ... my gosh' moment for someone.

 

[kINGFISHER]

After Steve Wright was arrested his girlfriend proclaimed his innocence and further claimed that she could provide him with alibis for the murders. Goodness knows what she thought after his conviction for all five murders. James Hanratty's brother still thinks he's innocent even though we have DNA evidence that nails his guilt. Look around the interweb and you'll find plenty of people proclaiming the innocence of their 'poor little Peter' who has been unjustly convicted in circumstances where the rest of us might beg to differ. People often have a difficulty in excepting the fact that their nearest and dearest are indeed killers.

We don't know what reason she is standing by him, could be any of those I mentioned, or not believing him capable, like you said, so another brick wall.

 

[whiterum]

I take that point but she may have been too frightened to come forward earlier, she may have known of connections to that house.

What I do find unusual is that the girlfriend is sticking by. Surely in normal circumstances if was blatant intent then you would run a mile from that person.
Unless she knows he is innocent or he claims diminished responsibilities through health issues or has been set up although a part of it , or even both party to it.

Whatever we don't live in a just world and afraid there won't be a truthful conclusion to this case as time goes on people s anger will cool off until the next case that the tragedy of it.

I agree that it is telling that his partner has visited him in prison and is said to be sticking by him, she must have a good reason to do so. If my BF was charged with murdering the next door neighbour you would not see me for dust, unless for some of the reasons you mentioned. Personally if the excuse was diminished responsibility through health issues, that definitely would not wash with me at all, he would be getting no visits from me with that yarn.

 

[whiterum]

We are into March.
Why hasn't VT's legal team applied for bail? If the case against him is as weak as some suggest then surely a bail application is a given.

I presume the first suspect arrested is still on police bail. If so, it's been a while.

I can totally understand how you missed his release from bail. Not quite the media scrum that was evident when he was arrested. In contrast, it hardly recieved a mention in the media. Some reports were more interested in advertising that his flat was up for sale, with full pictures of each room and all his contents.

 

[Nausicaa]

Just to toss in one or two thoughts relevant to the debate between MrBond and Aneurin.
I think one issue is popular misunderstanding of the current implications of being arrested.
Everyone knows that between the presumption of innocence and condemnation as guilty there are several steps: 1. being questioned, 2. being arrested, 3. being charged, 4. being tried, 5. being found guilty.
But if I understand things correctly, the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act made it much easier for the police to arrest someone. They now need comparatively little evidence against someone to have the legal right to proceed from step 1 to step 2 and actually arrest him.
Thus, since 1984 the gap between 1 and 2 (questioning and arrest) has diminished. But this has not changed the requirements for the other three steps. It is not significantly easier to be charged, tried or found guilty. Hence the gap between steps 2 and 3 has in fact increased proportionately.
I think the public remains widely unaware of this and assume that when someone is arrested, the police feel sure that he is guilty and have thus made a major error if they subsequently have to release him without charge.
Probably many people think, as I do, that the change, however desirable from the point of view of facilitating the police's task of catching criminals, raises considerable human rights issues. However, the police do not make the laws, and they will naturally take full advantage of the facilities the law gives them.
Meanwhile, though I regret this part of the 1984 Act, I don't think it in fact makes it more likely for an innocent person to be found guilty. We have either to change the law back again or get used to the fact that there need not be any more opprobrium attached to being arrested than there is to being interrogated. But it will take a long time for the public to take that on board.
I trust someone will correct me if it turns out that I have got my facts wrong.

 

[Nausicaa]

Another thought relates to the admissibility of LCN DNA evidence. Am I wrong in thinking that in the UK we don't have laws stating what evidence is admissible? I thought that judges decided whether evidence of a certain sort was admissible and juries decided whether it was credible and that was the end of the story. If I am right, the police or the CPS may have a policy of not presenting certain sorts of evidence, but that is their affair and purely a private and potentially changeable policy.
I'd be a lot happier if I were on trial myself, to think that juries were given some warning, and perhaps some examples, of cases in which expert scientific evidence had turned out to be wrong. A jury that swallows every statement emanating from a scientifically qualified expert witness is in my view failing to perform part of its duty.

 

[kINGFISHER]

[

I agree that it is telling that his partner has visited him in prison and is said to be sticking by him, she must have a good reason to do so. If my BF was charged with murdering the next door neighbour you would not see me for dust, unless for some of the reasons you mentioned. Personally if the excuse was diminished responsibility through health issues, that definitely would not wash with me at all, he would be getting no visits from me with that yarn.

Looking at it from another angle if we believe the neighbours and others that she had left him before Christmas, maybe she had some idea of a situation about to happen that she could not go along with. Poor j was unfortunately there at that particular time.

 

[goldielox]

I agree that it is telling that his partner has visited him in prison and is said to be sticking by him, she must have a good reason to do so. If my BF was charged with murdering the next door neighbour you would not see me for dust, unless for some of the reasons you mentioned. Personally if the excuse was diminished responsibility through health issues, that definitely would not wash with me at all, he would be getting no visits from me with that yarn.

"I swear it wasn't me. I didn't do it" ... that's good enough reason for many ever unfortunate enough to be in the same situation as TM not to abandon their lover, friend or family member. I think it's one of those situations where until it actually happens to you, you can't say for certain how you'd react and what you'd do. You know this person, probably have done for years if not all your life...you weren't there when the crime happened...they insist they are innocent and beg you to believe them..you weigh up both sides of the story and the evidence...and if there is margin for doubt (as to their guilt) you cling to it. It's a lot harder to walk away than it is to "stand by" them - there's an element of guilt in choosing to stick by someone who you can't help but worry that they might actually be guilty and then wouldn't have deserved your support or time on them. There's an element of guilt about walking away and possibly turning your back then on an innocent man.

I pity TM...so much. From past experience I'd be telling her to walk away. Very harsh if he's innocent I know, but she'll bear scars from this too she'll never forget or get over. I just hope for her sake he turns out to be worth it.

 

[mrbond]

It may be the case that TM is fully aware of VT's movements that weekend as she is living with him. The only time they were not together was Friday night when she was at a party as far as we know. The party was thirty miles away so presumably she was using her car. VT would need to get another car. But to actually borrow a car on such short notice is unlikely. And besides it would look very suspicious to borrow a car on the night your neigbour was possibly murdered. If VT did it he had a very small window of opportunity to dispose of her body what with TM being around 'n all
So TM could be asking herself,"when could he have moved the body I just don't believe it was possible I would have noticed ?" They live facing the car park more or less. Would VT carry a large sports bag across passing his window and not worry if TM was looking out at the time? Would she not ask VT what he was doing?
It is these details that this case can hang on. The logistics, the practicalities, the movements of VT and TM and how those movements relate to each other.

 

[aneurin]

Just to toss in one or two thoughts relevant to the debate between MrBond and Aneurin.
I think one issue is popular misunderstanding of the current implications of being arrested.

Yes, I think that's basically what I meant when I earlier wrote that "Arresting suspects is what the police do during a criminal investigation. Sometimes the arrest results in the suspect being charged with a crime, sometimes it doesn't."

There once was a time when the police used to 'invite' people in for questioning and then only arrest them if they really. really thought they'd committed a crime. Now, post PACE, arresting someone is often purely a matter of protocol.

That's certainly my understanding anyway.

 

[aneurin]

Another thought relates to the admissibility of LCN DNA evidence. Am I wrong in thinking that in the UK we don't have laws stating what evidence is admissible? I thought that judges decided whether evidence of a certain sort was admissible and juries decided whether it was credible and that was the end of the story. If I am right, the police or the CPS may have a policy of not presenting certain sorts of evidence, but that is their affair and purely a private and potentially changeable policy.

I think that under common law judges have the power to exclude any evidence in the interests of justice, a power that is now enshrined in s78 of PACE. To whit;

In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

Which means that, as in Regina v Stagg (1994), the judge can indeed turn around and say "I'm not having any of that BS in my court, thank you very much". Or whatever is the judicial equivalent thereof.

I'd be a lot happier if I were on trial myself, to think that juries were given some warning, and perhaps some examples, of cases in which expert scientific evidence had turned out to be wrong. A jury that swallows every statement emanating from a scientifically qualified expert witness is in my view failing to perform part of its duty.

I believe that the Caddy Report recommended that "any LTDNA profile should always be reported to the jury with the caveats: that the nature of the original starting material is unknown; that the time at which the DNA was transferred cannot be inferred; and that the opportunity for secondary transfer is increased in comparison to standard DNA profiling". I have no idea to that extent the judiciary have taken notice of this.

N.B. The Caddy Report, aka The Review of the Science of Low Template DNA Analysis, is available here and there on the Interweb. It's worthwhile reading (or at least skimming through) if only to find out why it's unlikely that any of the DNA evidence in the Yeates case will be LCN.

 

[kINGFISHER]

It may be the case that TM is fully aware of VT's movements that weekend as she is living with him. The only time they were not together was Friday night when she was at a party as far as we know. The party was thirty miles away so presumably she was using her car. VT would need to get another car. But to actually borrow a car on such short notice is unlikely. And besides it would look very suspicious to borrow a car on the night your neigbour was possibly murdered. If VT did it he had a very small window of opportunity to dispose of her body what with TM being around 'n all
So TM could be asking herself,"when could he have moved the body I just don't believe it was possible I would have noticed ?" They live facing the car park more or less. Would VT carry a large sports bag across passing his window and not worry if TM was looking out at the time? Would she not ask VT what he was doing?
It is these details that this case can hang on. The logistics, the practicalities, the movements of VT and TM and how those movements relate to each other.

There were claims today that Mr T has recently separated from his girlfriend T. Neighbours indicated Ms M moved out of the ground-floor flat they shared next to J apartment in
The neighbours would have known who was there or not, surely.

 

[mrbond]

There were claims today that Mr T has recently separated from his girlfriend T. Neighbours indicated Ms M moved out of the ground-floor flat they shared next to J apartment in
The neighbours would have known who was there or not, surely.

They were living together at the time by other accounts. As for neighbours in flats knowing each other's movements, in my experience it is surprising how remote fellow flat dwellers are to each other. CJ would probably know though as he seemed ubiquitous.
If I'm wrong in assuming they were still living together then of course VT had plenty of opportunity to remove the body.

 

[veggiefan]

The neighbours would have known who was there or not, surely.

Very doubtful. Some made an assumption that because they hadn't seem TM for some time, they may have split. But they probably didn't see her because VT was in America, and she may well have chosen to stay somewhere else rather than live alone for six weeks. In any case, TM's family and friends have confirmed that they have not split.

I live in a small, friendly cul-de-sac, but I haven't seen my next door neighbour since Christmas. Some people just prefer to remain private.