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

[veggiefan]

Well it was 4am when the police called on Monday 20th, which is what they were talking about in court

Sorry, I don't want to fight over a minor issue, but I think those reports from the court today have conflated two separate events. Remember that the reporters who are tweeting are having to work at the speed of stenographers but without the skills or technology of that profession, so mistakes are going to be inevitable.

GR didn't even report JY missing until around midnight. When the police arrived, probably around 1am, they were treating it as a missing person case - girlfriend walked out on boyfriend.

There is absolutely no way that they are going to start waking up neighbours at 4am to conduct house-to-house enquiries about an adult who seemed to have been out after midnight.

 

[weeeva]

The quote about TM said that she had asked GR to remove the cat, so I wondered if she might be allergic to cats. It's quite a common thing. But as you say, maybe she was afraid of being scratched. Presumably this happened while VT was away in the US.

Given that he's not denying he killed her, I would have thought a row over the cat would be a less damaging explanation than some of the other theories that have been put out! Most people could identify with a sudden loss of temper on both sides which escalated rapidly. Intrigued to see what his defence will actually be.

Yes Cherwell I agree. I read on twitter today from the court, that the prosecutors are claiming that Jo and VT first saw each other on that night through her kitchen window and they want the jury to see the view. Surely if she saw him looking in the window the last thing she would have done would be to open her door to him or approach him about it.
I know you can't believe everything you read but I remember reading somewhere at the beginning, that only the feet and part of the legs of anyone passing, would be seen from Jo's windows. I have tried to imagine this and studied photo's of the house but I just cannot see how this could be correct. Does anyone else remember reading this?

 

[veggiefan]

When we lived in a flat, we never got to know the other people living in the building. People don't necessarily want to get involved with people with whom the only thing they have in common is a shared roof.

It seems to me that sharing a roof with others is the most important reason for getting to know them!

Strangely enough, it was only when we lived in the country that I found neighbours who wanted to live in glorious isolation from everyone. When we moved back to London, we found this wonderful community in which we look after each other, do the shopping for neighbours who are ill, drive the elderly to their church or clubs, support those who have suffered a bereavement, and all - I must admit - club together to successfully fight off developers who want to grab our land!

Perhaps it is an age-related thing. I grew up at the end of the war in a tradition in which we all got along together.

I do worry about the isolationist policies of the young today - especially when a next-door neighbour murders one's beloved and the first response is to vilify and arrest the landlord.

In my opinion (and I'm not religious) it's not much of a society we have here if one cannot even be bothered to get to know, let alone love, one's own neighbours.

 

[weeeva]

I've lost the plot before smashed up some things in a downstairs room went a little crazy, (yes a moment of madness) when I discovered my partner cheating on me, - I didn't feel the need at the time to touch my partner, although I suppose I could have done if she was not sleeping at the time or I was the kind of person to be physical, which BTW I'm not :¬)

VT was not in a relationship with JY (as far as we know), what person loses it to that extent with a complete stranger if there is no motive (that we know of) other than a neighbourly disagreement.

I've had a 'moment of madness' before... what is his excuse... The cat.. come on.

I think most people can understand someone losing the plot when they discover a partner or spouse has cheated. Many a murder has been committed for this reason. It does not make it right and should not go unpunished, but we can understand it to an extent.
I can only think of 3 reasons for this attack on Jo.

1. A sexually motivated assault, or
2. VT being caught in a compromising situation. Either way Jo had to be shut up, for him to save face. Self preservation.
3. VT just wanted to kill a woman to satisfy some urge or other, or because he was bored.

 

[whiterum]

Yes Cherwell I agree. I read on twitter today from the court, that the prosecutors are claiming that Jo and VT first saw each other on that night through her kitchen window and they want the jury to see the view. Surely if she saw him looking in the window the last thing she would have done would be to open her door to him or approach him about it.
I know you can't believe everything you read but I remember reading somewhere at the beginning, that only the feet and part of the legs of anyone passing, would be seen from Jo's windows. I have tried to imagine this and studied photo's of the house but I just cannot see how this could be correct. Does anyone else remember reading this?

I remember reading that Tabak would see only Jo's legs as she passed his window, making her way to the carpark. No idea if it's true or not.

 

[weeeva]

You surely can't be serious.

Anyway the cat allergy thing is purely speculation.

Put it this way, if I was the defence trying to come up with an explanation, I would rather offer the cat story than some of the other scenarios that have been touted about. Stalking. Hidden cameras. Sexual assault. A row over a pet is very much a "there but for the grace of God go I" situation which many people could relate to.

I'm afraid we must accept that there is no guarantee that we will hear the truth of all this.

I don't think we will hear the truth. A simple thing like arguing about cat will go down better with the jury than if he admits he made a pass at Jo and lost control of the situation.

 

[whiterum]

Sounds as though they are going to dispute the timeline. Do they have a witness at or near the Hophouse, I wonder. Will they contradict the priest who was apparently the last to see JY

Remember this,

CCTV footage released today apparently shows Miss Yeates alive for the last time - with two unidentified people following the architect as she walked along a deserted street.
The images, taken from a pub's CCTV camera on the night the 25-year-old was last seen alive, include that of a blurred woman carrying a Tesco bag.
Just 27 seconds later, two more people are seen walking in the same direction in the film which has been examined by police.

Landscape architect Miss Yeates was recorded by cameras at the Hophouse pub in Clifton, Bristol at 8.44pm on Friday, December 17.


At that time she was reported to be only nine minutes walk away from her flat.

 

[weeeva]

I remember reading that Tabak would see only Jo's legs as she passed his window, making her way to the carpark. No idea if it's true or not.

Ah ha that's it. I have a habit of getting things wrong. No wonder I couldn't figure it out looking at Jo's flat. Then again I still find it hard to imagine with VT's flat. I'm off for a bit folks. Goodnight.

 

[masekwm]

A&S police have released images of VT's car:

I wonder if it was him, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...scene-after-dumping-her-body-115875-22842873/

"The make of car seen in the lane by the mystery couple has not been revealed."

 

[edgedweller]

Could it be that VT was *inside* the kitchen, and *JY* saw him from outside the window? She caught him snooping in her house - he thought she was in Sheffield with GR? She lets herself in and confronts him, he panics and there's a struggle? Perhaps he's got a key made from a previous occasion of borrowing keys from CJ and is bored at home without girlfriend so decides to have a little snoop? Maybe Jo threatened to tell his girlfriend and he can't let that happen. Although speaking as a woman a little older than Jo, I would be tempted to just run back in the direction of the street and immediately call police or a friend to come if there was a virtual stranger unexpectedly in my home. But as he's a neighbour and she has seen him around perhaps she thinks there's a problem in the flat, a leak or something but he can't explain himself and freaks out.

Judging by the photos of the houses, I can't see how you would only see someone's legs... anyone got a link to the pictures?

Looking forward to hearing the defence... I'm sure it will cast some doubt on the pros. case, but it is a pretty strong case for murder simply because it would take so long to kill someone that way (plenty of time to change your mind or just STOP STRANGLING HER!!) - he had to be pretty determined if she was fighting hard enough to get injuries. Poor Jo.

Personally I think VT was in it alone - he would have named another person by now, considering he was happy to drop CJ in it and he was innocent.

I think the people 'following' Jo are incidental, just people walking home or off to the pub, maybe already had a few drinks so don't remember seeing her.

Maybe he's going to claim that she died later, the screams mean nothing (they weren't her), but how does that explain her lack of text reply to a friend that she had asked to meet up with. If it was me I would be carrying my phone so as not to miss a call or text if I wanted to meet up with a friend. She obviously decided she didn't want to be home alone as she texted three male friends (and I don't find anything odd or suspicious about that - she was a sporty girl and seems like she'd get on well with men) to see what they were up to. Maybe the fact that they were men was WHY she texted them - to feel safer in the flat that evening? If only one of them had been there to call her...

 

[notsure]

I wonder if it was him, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...scene-after-dumping-her-body-115875-22842873/

"The make of car seen in the lane by the mystery couple has not been revealed."

It's possible; I can imagine him calculating the risks of trying to move the body, and thinking that it would be so much better for him if he could get the body over the wall. It must have irked him intensely that he had left her there to be discovered.

 

[whiterum]

I think the people who appeared to be following Jo are irrelevant just innocent shoppers. It's the timeline of the image of Jo the defense must to be interested in.

 

[bijoux]

I’ve learned a lot from all the above posters, so thanks to everyone.

As a result, I have to continuously remind myself that in pleading guilty to manslaughter, (or if the jury finds him guilty of murder) VT has accepted responsibility for JY’s death. It’s just a matter of the jury deciding murder or manslaughter, and the final sentencing which either way will be substantial. Is this correct?

Okay, so what the fekk happened on the night of December 17th, 2010 to put VT in this position?

From the evidence so far, we are to believe that between 8.50-8.55ish and 9.25 (only 30 -35mins!), JY arrives home, VT sees JY through her kitchen window, gains entry to her flat, kills her, puts her body in the trunk of his car (without anyone seeing him?), shops at Asda, and texts TM a couple of times?

I’m having difficulty comprehending that scenario. Not so much the scenario, as the shore amount of time to accomplish it. Is anyone else?

If the screams were not JY’s , then the murder may have happened later. For instance, is it possible VT met up with her after his visit to Asda?

On another note, I’m wondering if some of the injuries to JY’s body could have been sustained when VT tried several times to hoist her over the wall, as opposed to all of them having being sustained during his attack? Could a forensic autopsy differentiate between the two?

Also still wondering about the woman who tipped off police after the JY’s parents appeal. We know now it wasn’t car related. So what was the information so damning that it precipitated VT’s arrest?

Oh yes, and I am curious as to what happened between 9.25 and 0200 (when VT picked up TM). No texts? No CCTVs?

 

[Cherwell]

I wonder if it was him, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...scene-after-dumping-her-body-115875-22842873/

"The make of car seen in the lane by the mystery couple has not been revealed."

They told police they had seen a car driving slowly up and down Longwood Lane three or four times on the morning after Jo was last seen. Their 999 call was lodged 36 hours before Jo’s boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27, reported her missing.

I've never attached much importance to this, because if this is what they saw, and they were suspicious enough to call the police about it right away, they would have made a note of the car number. Otherwise what's the point in reporting it? So this would have been checked out very easily.

 

[edgedweller]

<< For instance, is it possible VT met up with her after his visit to Asda?>>

Surely she would've eaten the pizza and finished the cider by then though? And either texted or rung GR or other friends? She hadn't eaten since lunchtime - surely she would've been starving by 9pm?

 

[Robin Hood]

Remember this,

CCTV footage released today apparently shows Miss Yeates alive for the last time - with two unidentified people following the architect as she walked along a deserted street.
The images, taken from a pub's CCTV camera on the night the 25-year-old was last seen alive, include that of a blurred woman carrying a Tesco bag.
Just 27 seconds later, two more people are seen walking in the same direction in the film which has been examined by police.

Landscape architect Miss Yeates was recorded by cameras at the Hophouse pub in Clifton, Bristol at 8.44pm on Friday, December 17.


At that time she was reported to be only nine minutes walk away from her flat.

Could this be the people following Jo home ?

http://swns.com/vincent-tabak-stran...ing-with-her-body-in-his-car-boot-101603.html

''The court heard that two witnesses, a Mr and Mrs Layman, had inadvertently walked the same path as Jo that evening while on the way to a house party in Canynge Road.

They had also popped into Bargain Booze and arrived at their destination shortly before 8.50pm.

The pair had noticed a light gleaming from the outside of Jo’s flat as they walked past.

Mr Lickley told the court: ”As she (Mrs Layman) approached the path of the house party she heard a scream.

”She looked around behind her. She thought it had come from the direction of the security light.

”She said it appeared to be coming from someone in distress.

”After a short period there was another scream. She described it as coming from the same person. It was more muffled.

”She also describes hearing a bang from the same direction, sounding like furniture being moved.”

 

[edgedweller]

So why didn't the Laymans investigate the scream at the time? If I heard someone in distress I would hope that I would at least take a few steps in that direction to see what was going on... easy to say though, I know.

 

[Cherwell]

They had also popped into Bargain Booze and arrived at their destination shortly before 8.50pm.”

I would be asking them some very searching questions about the accuracy of their timing. People are rarely very precise about this kind of thing, and when they are you also need to consider that their reference point, be it clock, watch or whatever, may not have been accurate itself.

 

[edgedweller]

i don't really understand why it matters WHEN he killed her - he's already admitted he did it, and the method itself and the lengths he went to, to cover his tracks surely suggest murder as opposed to manslaughter. He was obviously thinking clearly enough to try and get himself an alibi placing himself and his phone in Bedminster Asda as soon as he could.

 

[Robin Hood]

I get the impression that Jo's kitchen window, the timing and VT saying he took his camera outside to photograph the snow is very important. Did Jo catch him taking photographs of her through the window ?