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

[Neurotripsy]

Oh dear.

Defence asks why the use of the broom handle to attach the straps to move #Joannayeates' body was not in statement.

Sounds like they're really clutching at straws...

 

[stmarysmead]

Is he saying death happened "in seconds?" But Jo was hurt in a struggle before she died...time was required to inflict other injuries. Imagine the size of him, hitting this girl in the eye and cheek!


"Purple bruising above Miss Yeates's right eye and a graze on her cheek were found by Dr Delaney.

Injuries on her nose and lip were also suffered while Miss Yeates was still alive, the court heard.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-body-photos-shown-court.html#ixzz1alurrWQM

 

[veggiefan]

Originally Posted by veggiefan:

The trouble is, the proseuction's expert witness has just admitted that he cannot quantify the duration of compression. It may have been over "in seconds".

He's got no choice though, I guess he was always going to have to say that if asked. It's not an exact science, is it.

Absolutely. And also, it's only the view of one pathologist.

VT's team had its own pathologist examine the body, and I wouldn't be surprised if we hear a different view when that doctor takes the stand.

 

[masekwm]

Imagine if he thought she was dead from the head injury, took her to the lane, she stirs so he strangles her. Like the bloke who murdered his wife a few weeks back, strangled, battered with a chair and then he slit her throat.

 

[whiterum]

I think they are but what they are trying to establish is that death was quick so if they get agreement that death could have occurred in the same time frame as the screams, then all they have to argue is that death took place later but was just as quick.

Is it just me, or do all the experts etc: in this trial seem a bit lackadaisical. If you ask me it had a foregone conclusion before it even started.

 

[veggiefan]

Is it just me, or do all the experts etc: in this trial seem a bit lackadaisical.

I think it's more a case that because the body wasn't found until a week after the killing, during which time it was in very suboptimal conditions, it's difficult to be specific about some of the facts.

If you ask me it had a foregone conclusion before it even started.

Tsk! tsk! You'd be no good on a jury! :innocent:

 

[Nausicaa]

Some twenty years ago I was part-owner of some sheep kept in a remote grazing area. Seem irrelevant ? Well, one day I visited them and found a young sheep that had caught itself in barbed wire and was injured beyond recovery. I decided to put it out of its misery. My penknife was not a suitable instrument for the slaughter so I was reduced to strangling it. I can therefore speak as being, in a certain sense, an experienced strangler. Don't read on if you're squeamish, but then you wouldn't be on this thread anyway if you were squeamish.
Of course I knew nothing about how to strangle, nothing about constricting key blood vessels to the brain etc. I set out to compress the windpipe and produce death by asphyxiation. Well, here is what I found : first, if you don't squeeze very hard indeed, the "victim" can still gasp. After very prolonged, very tight squeezing, calling for all my physical strength, the animal eventually went limp. I released my grip, and it promptly started breathing and struggling again! Renewed attempt, finally putting poor creature out of its misery, albeit at the issue of several very unpleasant minutes.

I now know that there is another way to strangle, for the real connoisseur. You have to get your fingers in the right place to cut off the blood supply to the brain. Death will be much quicker and less physical force will theoretically be required.

I take it that the pathologist is unwilling to state formally that the strangulation of Joanna was very protracted because the latter option may have been part of the deal. However, given that the windpipe of a living, struggling person, was crushed, it seems plain to me that we are not talking about a practically instantaneous death by simply cutting off oxygen to the brain. Even if he struck lucky, so to speak, as to where he put his fingers, he couldn't instantaneously crush the windpipe of a conscious unwilling victim. And even if theoretically she died of oxygen deprivation before he had finished crushing her throat, the fact that he continued to do so still seems quite incompatible with any intention except that of ensuring that she was dead.

I wonder if the prosecution might call a different expert witness as to the length of the strangulation process. The home office pathologist is the expert on Joanna's body. He is not necessarily the world's greatest expert on strangulation.

 

[veggiefan]

I take it that the pathologist is unwilling to state formally that the strangulation of Joanna was very protracted because the latter option may have been part of the deal.

Eh? I think he said he didn't know how long it took because he didn't know. What is this "deal" to which you refer?

However, given that the windpipe of a living, struggling person, was crushed,

Why do you think that? The prosecution pathologist said there was "no evidence of significant injury to laryngal skeleton".

 

[goldielox]

I can therefore speak as being, in a certain sense, an experienced strangler.

Lol, you kept that quiet Nausicaa

 

[veggiefan]

Is he saying death happened "in seconds?" But Jo was hurt in a struggle before she died...time was required to inflict other injuries. Imagine the size of him, hitting this girl in the eye and cheek!

"Purple bruising above Miss Yeates's right eye and a graze on her cheek were found by Dr Delaney.

Injuries on her nose and lip were also suffered while Miss Yeates was still alive, the court heard.

But this is only the view of one pathologist, studying the corpse a week after the event and after it had been left in the open air to freeze.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that a different doctor might come to the conclusion that the bruise was caused when she fell to the floor immediately after death, or that the graze was caused by the failed attempt to push the body over a jagged stone wall.

I think we should wait for medical evidence from others before deciding that the might of the state prosecution service must be right (not that I wish to defend VT - but I would like to see a result that is based on evidence rather than assumption.)

 

[bos]

Why do you think that? The prosecution pathologist said there was "no evidence of significant injury to laryngal skeleton".[/QUOTE]

Can I ask where you got that from Veggie? Or indeed if anybody else has found a good, factual account of what has been said in court that has more detail than the Tweets posted here?

 

[bos]

Why do you think that? The prosecution pathologist said there was "no evidence of significant injury to laryngal skeleton".

Can I ask where you got that from Veggie? Or indeed if anybody else has found a good, factual account of what has been said in court that has more detail than the Tweets posted here?

 

[Clio]

Or indeed if anybody else has found a good, factual account of what has been said in court that has more detail than the Tweets posted here?

You could try The Independent article

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...er-images-of--joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html

 

[Nausicaa]

Eh? I think he said he didn't know how long it took because he didn't know. What is this "deal" to which you refer?

Obviously he didn't know, Veggiefan. I was enquiring as to what the doubt might precisely relate to.

Strangulation comes in two basic types - the type that causes death by preventing you from breathing and the type that causes death by cutting off blood to the brain. The former takes a considerable time, the latter not. It is possible for the two sorts to occur simultaneously and either may be only partial and contributory rather than the essential cause of death. I am suggesting that the pathologist's reluctance to state that the strangulation lasted a significant time was due to the possibility that the second type, leading rapidly to cerebral ischaemia, was involved and not merely the first type leading to asphyxia.

I hope this is now clear.

My remark was that strangulation merely cutting off the blood supply does not of itself entail damage to the windpipe and that significant damage to the windpipe suggests the former method of strangulation as at least concomitant, with its implication of time for reflection.

Why do you think that? The prosecution pathologist said there was "no evidence of significant injury to laryngal [sic] skeleton".

Thank you : I seem to have missed this quote. I am sure that the contrary was specifically stated earlier in the trial and quoted on this thread but I can't locate it at present. Indeed if the pathologist did not find significant crushing of the windpipe (larynx or trachea) my remarks apply in reverse : the suggestion is clearly that death was caused by cutting off the blood supply to the brain and would have been quite rapid. A point favourable to the defence.

A third possibility does occur to me. A tight side-to-side squeeze on the windpipe could perhaps cut off the breathing for the requisite period without actually leaving "significant injury".

I am left wanting more precise information and once again hoping for the participation of an expert witness on strangulation.

 

[aneurin]

Can I ask where you got that from Veggie? Or indeed if anybody else has found a good, factual account of what has been said in court that has more detail than the Tweets posted here?

I presume veggie got it from

http://twitter.com/#!/rupertevelyn

as in

rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
Delaney pressed by Def on whether there's evidence of extreme force used. He says "no evidence of significant injury to laryngal skeleton"

 

[Cherwell]

Thank you : I seem to have missed this quote. I am sure that the contrary was specifically stated earlier in the trial and quoted on this thread but I can't locate it at present.

Is this the quote? It's in the sidebar headed "TERRIBLE TOLL FROM VIOLENT STRUGGLE"

A later internal examination found further bruising beneath the skin and possible injury to her voice box.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-suffered-43-injuries-slow-painful-death.html

 

[aneurin]

....

Strangulation comes in two basic types - the type that causes death by preventing you from breathing and the type that causes death by cutting off blood to the brain. The former takes a considerable time, the latter not. It is possible for the two sorts to occur simultaneously and either may be only partial and contributory rather than the essential cause of death. I am suggesting that the pathologist's reluctance to state that the strangulation lasted a significant time was due to the possibility that the second type, leading rapidly to cerebral ischaemia, was involved and not merely the first type leading to asphyxia.

I hope this is now clear.
.....

There are actually at least four mechanisms by which death can occur as a result of strangulation. Being;

1. cardiac arrhythmia leading to cardiac arrest
2. obstruction of the carotid arteries preventing blood flow to the brain
3. obstruction of the jugular veins preventing blood flow from the brain,
4. pressure obstruction of the larynx

Although I understand 1 to be very rare, and 2 and 3 are often lumped together, although the distinction is important as you need more pressure to block the blood flow rather than the blood return, and hence you are more likely to find tissue damage to the neck.

It is of course very worrying that I know this sort of thing.

 

[kINGFISHER]

It was stated I believe that she was left in a foetal position, was this deliberate or by chance, if so what sort of killers would do that.

 

[Redgoblin]

It was stated I believe that she was left in a foetal position, was this deliberate or by chance, if so what sort of killers would do that.

?

I would suggest that having her in his boot of his car, she would of had to of been in the foetal position to fit she wouldn't have been able to fit in his boot laying in a completely flat horizontal position and that she was possibly deposited in a state of Rigor Mortis from his boot. I could be wrong if she was laying flat or at a diagonal.?

The pathologist would probably know this . The onset of rigor mortis may range from 10 minutes to several hours, depending on factors including temperature (rapid cooling of a body can inhibit rigor mortis, but it occurs upon thawing). Maximum stiffness is reached around 12-24 hours post mortem.

I don't believe her body was staged in a specific position. IMO.

 

[bos]

There are actually at least four mechanisms by which death can occur as a result of strangulation. Being;

1. cardiac arrhythmia leading to cardiac arrest
2. obstruction of the carotid arteries preventing blood flow to the brain
3. obstruction of the jugular veins preventing blood flow from the brain,
4. pressure obstruction of the larynx

Although I understand 1 to be very rare, and 2 and 3 are often lumped together, although the distinction is important as you need more pressure to block the blood flow rather than the blood return, and hence you are more likely to find tissue damage to the neck.

It is of course very worrying that I know this sort of thing.

The Independent article linked to above, says that there was haemorrhaging around the eye area which is consistent with venous obstruction.