GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #14

[kINGFISHER]

Whiterum How would he have known for sure that a friend or family member would not call to see JY, especially since she was on her own and not answering calls. He would not have known she didn't answer her phone promptly.

Yes this is one point that is difficult No matter any of the senarios mentioned how at anytime was he sure no one was going to see him, return etc. Did he get a buzz from the element of the danger of being caught. So how cleverly was it arranged , or not. Then if not we are back to unintentional.

 

[Cherwell]

How would he have known for sure that a friend or family member would not call to see JY, especially since she was on her own and not answering calls.

She might have told him herself that she wasn't expecting any visitors.

 

[aneurin]

But the case will revolve around whether the crime was planned (murder) or not (manslaughter).

That's not the distinction. The crime of murder is committed, where a person, of sound mind and discretion, unlawfully kills, any reasonable creature, in being, under the Queen's Peace, with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Claims of manslaughter usually revolve either claiming that the accused was either a) not of 'sound mind and discretion' or b) lacked 'intent'. 'Planning' does not come into it as such; intent is what matters, and intent can be formed in a matter of seconds. What 'happened afterwards' may well be of great significance in any given homicide, as the jury are entitled to infer intent from what 'happened afterwards'.

 

[whiterum]

She might have told him herself that she wasn't expecting any visitors.

That is true Cherwell but not expecting visitors would mot stop a worried boyfriend or family member calling to the flat themselves or contacting someone nearby (possibly CJ ) to check and see if she got home ok.

Especially since she hadn't answered her phone and was on her own.

They knew it was not unusual for her to answer promptly but VT would not have known that.

 

[Cherwell]

That's not the distinction. The crime of murder is committed, where a person, of sound mind and discretion, unlawfully kills, any reasonable creature, in being, under the Queen's Peace, with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Claims of manslaughter usually revolve either claiming that the accused was either a) not of 'sound mind and discretion' or b) lacked 'intent'. 'Planning' does not come into it as such; intent is what matters, and intent can be formed in a matter of seconds. What 'happened afterwards' may well be of great significance in any given homicide, as the jury are entitled to infer intent from what 'happened afterwards'.

And yet, as we saw here, preparing a coffin and digging a grave in advance is not sufficient to persuade some juries of intent.

 

[veggiefan]

Claims of manslaughter usually revolve either claiming that the accused was either a) not of 'sound mind and discretion' or b) lacked 'intent'. 'Planning' does not come into it as such; intent is what matters, and intent can be formed in a matter of seconds.

It's a fine distinction - a plan can be formed in a matter of seconds!

But I agree that "intent" is the better word to use, as it forms part of the legal distinction.

What 'happened afterwards' may well be of great significance in any given homicide, as the jury are entitled to infer intent from what 'happened afterwards'.

You must read my comment in the context in which I wrote it: which was pointing out that disposing of the body in no way proves that the intent was murder, however reprehensible a thing it may be.

Think of it in terms of killing somebody through dangerous driving. The driver might panic and try to hide the body - but that does not indicate that the charge changes to murder as a result.

 

[whiterum]

Think of it in terms of killing somebody through dangerous driving. The driver might panic and try to hide the body - but that does not indicate that the charge changes to murder as a result.

If the driver did not call the emergency services and tried to hide the body, how could he prove that the poor person may well have been still alive, should not have been moved and could possibly have been saved.

Could this selfish act not still be classed as murder ?

 

[Cherwell]

If the driver did not call the emergency services and tried to hide the body, how could he prove that the poor person may well have been still alive, should not have been moved and could possibly have been saved.

Could this selfish act not still be classed as murder ?

No. It was a hypothetical example in which the death is known to be instant and accidental. There are no ifs, hows or buts.

 

[aneurin]

It's a fine distinction - a plan can be formed in a matter of seconds! But I agree that "intent" is the better word to use, as it forms part of the legal distinction.

Well I think that using the word 'plan' is misleading because it implies that the defendant must have made the concious decision to kill in order to be guilty of murder. That's not the case; intent simply requires foresight of the consequences of an action.

You must read my comment in the context in which I wrote it: which was pointing out that disposing of the body in no way proves that the intent was murder, however reprehensible a thing it may be.

Yes, I understand that, but when it comes to a criminal trial, what anything 'proves' is often neither here nor there. Any evidence that puts the accused in a 'bad light' can and will be used against them. As in the case of Luke Mitchell who was convicted of murder a few years ago - there was no 'proof' that Mitchell did anything at all, just a lot of what you might call 'dirt' that made him look 'bad'.

Think of it in terms of killing somebody through dangerous driving. The driver might panic and try to hide the body - but that does not indicate that the charge changes to murder as a result.

Yes, but it would make it a lot easier to get a conviction for vehicular manslaughter, and much harder for the driver to claim that it was 'just an accident'.

 

[notsure]

I wonder if they will claim some kind of multiple personality disorder, which enabled him to "forget" about an act committed by another aspect of his psyche - or is that too far-fetched?

 

[notsure]

Some interesting bits about the jury selection here:

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Spot...ermine-truth/story-13481937-detail/story.html

 

[whiterum]

No. It was a hypothetical example in which the death is known to be accidental. There are no ifs, hows or buts.

I thought it was also a hypothetical example in the context of this case.

My reply was hypothetically referring to the actions of VT after the deed.

Would his actions be more in keeping with the attempted cover up of a murder, rather than an accident.

As in the case of the hypothetical driver, would his actions after the deed not make it appear that he had been drink/driving or speeding, totally responsible for the death, rather than an accident.

In both cases no emergency services were called, so could either of these victims the real or the hypothetical have been saved.

 

[Cherwell]

Would his actions be more in keeping with the attempted cover up of a murder, rather than an accident.

I can't see why there should be any difference. The object of the exercise was to avoid association with the death, however it occurred.

 

[aneurin]

And yet, as we saw here, preparing a coffin and digging a grave in advance is not sufficient to persuade some juries of intent.

In the end it always comes down to the jury. In the case of Robert Brown the jury (or at least 10 of them) bought the defence version of events. Indeed one would have thought that a pre-prepared grave was indeed 'proof' of intent. But as I've said, when it comes to criminal trials, 'proof' sometimes doesn't matter that much - it's more a case of selling a particular story to the jury. (Not that it did Brown that much good; the judge didn't buy it and gave him 26 years.)

 

[whiterum]

I can't see why there should be any difference. The object of the exercise was to avoid association with the death, however it occurred.

My point is it could make a big difference regarding a conviction.

If he killed JY and left her body where it was, phoned the emergency services claiming an accident, this might raise some doubt about his guilt, despite other evidence at a trial.

As it is, his actions after the death could help complete part of the bigger picture which gives further support to the CPS charge of murder.

This is my opinion only.

 

[veggiefan]

My reply was hypothetically referring to the actions of VT after the deed.

Would his actions be more in keeping with the attempted cover up of a murder, rather than an accident.

Nobody is claiming that it was an accident. VT has admitted to manslaughter (a charge that effectivelty carries a similar penalty to murder), and that implies that he was grossly negligent, or that he performed a dangerous or unlawful act (without due attention to its consequences), or that he lost control (perhaps due to provocation).

There are other defenses for manslaughter (such as diminished responsibility or a suicide pact) but I doubt that they will apply to this case.

In both cases no emergency services were called, so could either of these victims the real or the hypothetical have been saved.

There is no general "duty of care" that legally requires a citizen to prevent the death of another citizen. For instance, if you see somebody drowning, it is not illegal to decline to jump into the sea to save them. There are exceptions to this (medical staff, parents and their children, etc) - but the law is clear that it does not include a "good samaritan" clause. There might be a relatively minor issue of failing to report a death to a coroner.

 

[veggiefan]

In the end it always comes down to the jury.

Indeed so.

In the case of Robert Brown the jury (or at least 10 of them) bought the defence version of events.

But you have immediately spoilt your point by using biased language ("the jury bought the defence version").

Indeed one would have thought that a pre-prepared grave was indeed 'proof' of intent. But as I've said, when it comes to criminal trials, 'proof' sometimes doesn't matter that much - it's more a case of selling a particular story to the jury.

And you've done it again. You know very well that what is required in criminal trials in the UK (and in most of the western world) is that the accused is innocent unless the jury is convinced otherwise beyond any reasonable doubt.

I don't think that using phrases which suggest that the jury "buys" ideas, or that lawyers "sell" ideas is very helpful. Do please give the ordinary man or woman in the jury more credit than implying they are the unwitting victims of some sales campaign - otherwise we might just as well do away with trial by jury.

 

[veggiefan]

My point is it could make a big difference regarding a conviction.

If he killed JY and left her body where it was, phoned the emergency services claiming an accident, this might raise some doubt about his guilt, despite other evidence at a trial.

As it is, his actions after the death could help complete part of the bigger picture which gives further support to the CPS charge of murder.

As I said in another post, there is no "good samaritan" clause in English law.

Many of us would agree that morally we should help someone in distress or near death. But what if that puts us ourselves into jeopardy?

For instance, should we help someone who is drowning if we ourselves don't swim?

Should we help someone who has just been stabbed in the street if the gang of 10 hoodies who did it are still gathered around the body, with knives in their hands?

Should we contact the police if we notice that some unknown person has accidentally turned off the life-support machine for our beloved mother who has been in acute pain for years and who has been praying for death for as long as we can remember?

These are difficult moral questions which the law is unequipped to answer. I cannot see how the details might apply to this case, but (to take an extreme example) ringing the emergency services to report a body that has been dead for days will do nothing to bring it back to life.

 

[bijoux]

NB: I last posted months ago under user name enqueter but couldn't remember my password, so henceforth I shall be known as 'bijoux'.

Great to see the interest in this case is still high and to see so many familiar posters here!

I think the defense will claim VT was intoxicated at the time and thus in a state of diminished mental capacity, so that when his sexual advances toward Joanna went wrong, he lost control and the worst happened. Would this qualify as accidental death though, if he claims he only meant to stop her from getting away or calm her down or whatever else?

I also wonder the same thing as whiterum: if VT hadn't covered his tracks would the prosecution still be charging him with murder as opposed to manslaughter?

And more questions:

How can the prosecution bring new evidence to the defense (1200 pages!) at such a late date?

In the UK can witnesses be in the court room during the trial, or only for their own testimony?

Is TM still standing by her man, I wonder?

 

[notsure]

Hi bijoux, I keep thinking that intoxication is the most likely thing that made him act so recklessly and so quickly after she got home. After his bike ride, he was pumped up, full of energy, yet he had a lonely evening ahead. A bottle of wine, the sounds of partying people and the general festive spirit might have made him wish for company, and he knew that Greg was away. He didn't necessarily know that Jo would be home alone, though; for all he knew, she might have brought friends with her. Perhaps he went to her door on some pretext: the cat was out crying in the cold, and VT took him into his flat for a while, giving him an excuse to go round and knock on the door... who knows? It would be interesting to find out the truth. I don't know either if killing someone under those circumstances - loss of control due to inebriation after a failed pass -could be classed as manslaughter.