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

[notsure]

I expect it would be safe to assume that he would have been asked a few questions and most likely repeated the lies he told the reporter among others.

“I don’t know of anyone who saw or heard anything” what about himself he being the perpetrator was the sole person who saw and heard everything, even Jo’s last breath.

“ I wasn’t there, I was away the night she went missing”. He obviously was there the night she went missing, whether or not he made it appear that he was referring to another night, does not make it anything less than a lie. The actual night she went missing, he killed her removed her body from her home and dumped her in Longwood Lane.

He did not need to say anything, he could have said “no comment” like many others, but in the words of the reporter ” he was keen to talk”

I agree with you, whiterum. He didn't tell his family the truth (according to them), so therefore he was lying by omission.

 

[Deckard]

True, but I think VT must have had some sort of alibi when the police first questioned him. However, I guess that if a lack of alibi was the only evidence against him at that point, it wouldn't have been enough to bring him in for questioning.

Why leave a stone unturned, especially if the stone lived next door?

Surely VT's alibi must have seemed more concrete to take him off the radar?

A simple Manuel defence of "I know nothing" wouldn't stop suspicion.

After the initial inquiries, CJ was placed front and centre of the investigation. No handy alibi for the man who lives alone.

Yet, as Cherwell pointed out, TM was miles away on the Friday night. You'd think with the net so close, things would be easier to decipher. Nope!

All we know is VT convinced detectives at the beginning of his innocence. When the case first started I had assumed that the couple who lived in Flat 1 hadn't even been occupying it at the time. They were like ghosts barely even mentioned in press dispatches.

I agree that TM is looking more likely to be the sobbing girl on the phone. A breaking point of conscience mixed with self preservation as you say.

 

[Robin Hood]

Killers and their methods of deception

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011jcmg/Crimewatch_Special_Catch_Me_If_You_Can/

Only available to UK viewers, maybe somebody knows how to download it and make it available to all, I'm sorry I wouldn't know how.

 

[whiterum]

Why leave a stone unturned, especially if the stone lived next door?

After the initial inquiries, CJ was placed front and centre of the investigation. No handy alibi for the man who lives alone.

Exactly - the police pledge to the family “we will leave no stone unturned.”

Unfortunately, while they were concentrating all their efforts on a pebble, a stone closer to home had time to clean away the moss, was on a plane to Holland with goodness knows what in his luggage. Thankfully, they managed to get there in the end, although a bit too late for the wrongfully accused.

 

[veggiefan]

He didn't tell his family the truth (according to them), so therefore he was lying by omission.

But he didn't tell them a lie, as far as we know.

However, I think this protracted discussion about whether VT may or may not have told a lie, or avoided telling the whole truth, is really a red herring.

Having admitted to manslaughter, the case against VT will revolve around whether his unlawful killing of JY was pre-meditated or not. That will require evidence - not just words from VT.

 

[whiterum]

Killers and their methods of deception

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011jcmg/Crimewatch_Special_Catch_Me_If_You_Can/ .

That was so good, especially the case where the murderer was duped by police into going back and digging up his victim's burial site. He thought he was so smart and ended up digging his own grave, lol. Brilliant!

 

[notsure]

But he didn't tell them a lie, as far as we know.

If he didn't tell them the truth, then he lied by omission.

I do agree that this line of thought isn't really getting anywhere, though.

 

[Nausicaa]

A lot of people seem to find it surprising that a man they clearly believe is guilty of murder would also tell lies. I find myself unable to share this reaction.

 

[Robin Hood]

A lot of people seem to find it surprising that a man they clearly believe is guilty of murder would also tell lies. I find myself unable to share this reaction.

IIRC it all started with posters wondering if certain individuals were going to be called as witnesses to the fact he lied to them.

The guy arrested for the murder of Sian O'Callaghan did similar by telling colleagues he feared for his own daughters and telling them he was being looked at for having the same make of car as the Police were looking for.
It seems to be a trait that the Police are aware of, maybe this guys trial may have similar aspects to VT's.

I have always believed VT's deception started the moment he left his flat in the direction of Jo's flat. Even if he didn't set out for murder he was (IMO) about to attempt to cheat on either TM or engage in something unsavoury towards Jo.

 

[Chester]

A lot of people seem to find it surprising that a man they clearly believe is guilty of murder would also tell lies. I find myself unable to share this reaction.

I totally agree, a lot of the talk has been about lying by omission which I have found a bit odd. You have the right not to incriminate yourself.

 

[notsure]

I totally agree, a lot of the talk has been about lying by omission which I have found a bit odd. You have the right not to incriminate yourself.

Why is it odd? It was part of a discussion about whether VT had lied to his family or not. Either he told them what he did to JY or not. If he did tell them, they kept it to themselves. If he did not tell them, then he withheld information from them with the intention to deceive (i.e. lying by omission).

He didn't have the right not to incriminate himself. There was a moral and legal obligation to confess, but he did not. He wanted to save his own neck, and only admitted to killing after he discovered that there was incontrovertible evidence against him.

 

[Nausicaa]

There was a moral and legal obligation to confess, but he did not.

This appears to be wrong. Criminals are not legally obliged to confess. For instance, the "not guilty" plea is not considered to be perjury if you are found guilty. And strange though it may appear, it is not commonly agreed by experts in ethics and morals that there is a moral obligation to confess either unless (a) someone else is going to carry the can, or (b) your confession is the only realistic way of avoiding new crimes.

But even if confession was a duty, failure to confess still seems to me an almost irrelevant peccadillo by comparison with murder and indeed the almost inevitable sequence to murder.

The accused man is going to be tried for killing someone, not for telling lies or failing to "give closure" to bereaved relatives, and that seems to me to be how things ought to be. The specific fact of dumping the body is, I think, considered a separate, serious crime, whether you murdered the person or not. Concealment, lying, etc. may be factors that will bear indirectly on whether he is found guilty of murder or not, if they can be shown to be more suggestive of deliberate than accidental killing. I can't see that they are substantial aggravations of murder.

 

[Chester]

He didn't have the right not to incriminate himself. There was a moral and legal obligation to confess, but he did not. He wanted to save his own neck, and only admitted to killing after he discovered that there was incontrovertible evidence against him.

He absolutely has the right not to incriminate himself. It is a basic human right covered by law in most civilised countries. At present we have no idea what prompted him to enter a guilty plea to manslaughter, it might be evidence or it may have been his conscience.

 

[Chester]

Interesting story in the papers today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...f-murdering-wife-but-jailed-for-26-years.html

So this guy had a strong motive, planned the killing, prepared a disposal site in advance, went prepared with a weapon, then concealed the body. Yet the CPS failed to secure a murder conviction. Granted he was found guilty of manslaughter and has got a 26 year sentence.

So compare this to the situation VT finds himself in. He has already admitted manslaughter for which the guidelines suggest would carry a life sentence with a minimum of 16 years in prison. Yet the CPS insist on pursuing the murder charge. What makes them believe they stand a chance when they failed in the above case.

Robert Brown ticks all the boxes for a murder charge, Vincent Tabak ticks virtually none.

 

[Chester]

The specific fact of dumping the body is, I think, considered a separate, serious crime, whether you murdered the person or not.

Rather strangely it is quite often not considered to be that serious a crime.

 

[kINGFISHER]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fe-death-pre-nup-agreement-cleared-murder.htm
Yes just read this in the Mail and some of the comments, makes you wonder what is going on in our so called justice system and they call this manslaughter.

Today he smirked as he was sentenced to 26 years in prison for manslaughter after being acquitted of murder.

How many years will that really mean ? Note they mention his status , same aplys here I would think.

 

[Chester]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fe-death-pre-nup-agreement-cleared-murder.htm
Yes just read this in the Mail and some of the comments, makes you wonder what is going on in our so called justice system and they call this manslaughter.

Today he smirked as he was sentenced to 26 years in prison for manslaughter after being acquitted of murder.

How many years will that really mean ? Note they mention his status , same aplys here I would think.

Although not reported clearly, I would expect this was a life sentence with a recommendation of a minimum term of 26 years.

 

[Cherwell]

Granted he was found guilty of manslaughter.

He pleaded guilty to manslaughter, so the jury did not have to consider it.

Although not reported clearly, I would expect this was a life sentence with a recommendation of a minimum term of 26 years.

I expect and hope that you're right. The judge's comments strongly suggested that he did not agree with the jury, and it would be odd if he hadn't given the maximum sentence available to him, ie life.

 

[whiterum]

. He wanted to save his own neck, and only admitted to killing after he discovered that there was incontrovertible evidence against him.

Totally agree- I doubt conscience had anything to do with it, otherwise he would have given himself up when poor GR was being accused left right and centre. Also kept his trap shut when CJ was being slandered and branded a murderer.

As you say, he knows he hasn't a leg to stand on regarding evidence of his guilt in Jo’s killing. He may have had a so-called right to say nothing but all statements he may have made ( alibi's to police etc ) will be revealed in court and I would expect the Jury will be given copies .

Jo, the only actual witness to the truth, is no longer here to defend herself. He didn’t give a toss about the other innocent accused reputations, so why would he care about his victim’s.

When he starts telling his version, he can concoct any tale to back up his manslaughter plea but taking all into account, whether the jury believe him or not is another story.

 

[Cherwell]

I doubt conscience had anything to do with it, otherwise he would have given himself up when poor GR was being accused left right and centre. Also kept his trap shut when CJ was being slandered and branded a murderer.

Your point regarding CJ stands since he was arrested, but was GR ever publicly "accused" other than on internet forums and the like? Not everyone reads this sort of stuff.