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

[herculemarple]

I think her coat and other things were on the floor of the hall, maybe it's odd because the coat stand is right there and it would have been easy to just use it.

Maybe there was blood on the floor in the flat from poor Jo's nose

 

[veggiefan]

I think her coat and other things were on the floor of the hall, maybe it's odd because the coat stand is right there and it would have been easy to just use it.

The words said to have been used by David Yeates were (with my emphases):

"We were 100 per cent convinced within 30 minutes of arriving at the flat that she had been abducted."

So it doesn't sound like anything immediately obvious, such as coat left on the floor. Also, although he knew by then that she was dead, the word used was abducted rather than killed or murdered.

He added that there were "other factors, other reasons that we've been asked by the police not to go into", that left him convinced she had been abducted.

 

[FiestyFairy]

If the trial is set to last 4 weeks there must still be a substantial amount of evidence to be produced by both the prosecution and the defense. At this point I can't imagine VT taking the stand in his own defense, and if he doesn't it is highly unlikely the full details will ever come out

 

[Luna15]

I agree with you about that. When I read the reference to Rizla papers, I just thought of roll-ups.

I guess I am guilty of 'stereotyping'.... dutch bloke/rizla...

apologies if I have offended anyone.

 

[whiterum]

I didn't say that

I am not trying to defend VT. There is no doubt he has done some despicable things. He killed JY - a fact that's not in dispute. He tried to pass the blame onto CJ.
He has told many lies but that doesn't mean there are no elements of truth at all in what he has said.

I know you are not, but when he has lied from day one, that he never left the flat then ie: when the door was taken for forensic testing, his story changes to he went out for a walk past Flat1, he slips on ice and may have touched the door. Seems he was changing his story to suit as events unfold.

It is hard then to give the now confessed killer the benefit of the doubt in anything he says or has said.

 

[Cherwell]

I'd guess that he wiped up any marks with the missing sock.

I'd have thought he'd have to do a better job than that! They did some pretty intense forensics in there.

Oh yes, it wouldn't have got past a forensic search, but it would have been good enough to delay investigations further. I mean, if GR had seen bloodstains all over the place when he got back, he would have raised the alarm at once.

So it doesn't sound like anything immediately obvious, such as coat left on the floor. Also, although he knew by then that she was dead, the word used was abducted rather than killed or murdered.

And it was something that GR hadn't noticed (presumably) in the few hours since he'd arrived home.

 

[Sammyme]

If the trial is set to last 4 weeks there must still be a substantial amount of evidence to be produced by both the prosecution and the defense. At this point I can't imagine VT taking the stand in his own defense, and if he doesn't it is highly unlikely the full details will ever come out

I wouldn't be too sure about that. The court does seem to proceed at a very leisurely pace. By the end of the first week, I think they had managed to work themselves up to a 10 00 am start, though they probably knocked off about 3 30 pm. Not exactly onerous! So it will be interesting to see how it proceeds and whether there is a lot or a little still to come by way of witnesses and evidence. And of course, it could finish early. That's another possibility.

 

[Clio]

re How long till the end of the trial

I saw a TV news report by Jon Kay, which I think was last Thursday, saying the media had been told the trial would run for about another two weeks

Sorry, but I can't find it anywhere on the web to post a link

 

[wfgodot]

Maybe there was blood on the floor in the flat from poor Jo's nose

Hello and welcome to WS, herculemarple.

 

[Nausicaa]

On the question of what the defence's line is, I note that when the screams were first mentioned by the prosecution as evidence pinning down the time of the assault (before the jury had visited the crime scene) the defence seemed to cast doubt on the prosecution's timeline and therefore on whether the screams heard were in fact Joanna's. But later on, on the issue of how long Joanna was strangled for before succumbing, they quoted the relatively short duration of the scream-scream-thud sequence (less than 10 seconds) and badgered the pathologist into stating that he couldn't be certain that this did not represent the strangulation period.

Clearly they can't have it both ways. The screams can't have been Joanna's when they are convenient (suggesting a short strangulation period) but someone else's when they are inconvenient (suggesting a very early attack with little time for any provocation of any sort).

I may be wrong but this looks to me like a defence that is not out to sell the jury a clear alternative version of events but wishes simply to cast doubt (even incompatible doubts) on individual aspects of the prosecution's case. And if I am right that looks very weak to me, though it may be the best they can think of. After all, VT knows when he killed her. He knows whether she was in the boot when he went shopping. By implication he has a very good idea whether it was Joanna heard screaming or not. I hope the jury will be expecting to be told a credible version of events that contradicts the prosecution's case and that any vague calling into question of details without giving a consistent opposing account will be dismissed.

 

[badhorsie]

On the issue of whether VT was deliberately trying to stitch up CJ, I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, but at present the facts seem pretty clear to me. The information he gave to the police from the Netherlands needs to be seen in the context of the famous Gunter Morson (Tanja Morson's brother) 31st December tweet:


Followed, the next day, after Jefferies was released, by:



There are no prizes for guessing who Gunter's source was. VT and TM believed that the information given to the police from the Netherlands was such as to convince them of CJ's guilt. Tanja of course may have believed at that point that CJ was guilty. VT did not.

More than the thank you button for this, I had completely forgotten about that

 

[badhorsie]

I agree with you about that. When I read the reference to Rizla papers, I just thought of roll-ups.

Most spliff smokers use the king size Rizlas anyway

 

[Clio]

The only other definite point on the timeline we currently have between the screams and VT being in Asda is VT's text to TM saying he was 'bored'. It does seem to be a spectacularly odd text to send in the wake of having killed your neighbour. Maybe it's just the first step in trying to conceal what has just happened, by texting his girlfriend claiming his state of mind to be what must surely have been the precise opposite of what he was actually feeling. Or maybe at this point nothing had happened and he genuinely was bored.

I presume you are referring to the 9:25pm "bored" text?

VT sent 2 texts to TM, one at 9:25pm and the other at 10:30pm when he was in Asda

"He sent texts to his girlfriend Tanja at 9.25pm and 10.30pm, saying he was ”bored”. from http://swns.com/vincent-tabak-stran...ing-with-her-body-in-his-car-boot-101603.html

At 10.30pm, after buying crisps and beer, he texted her to say: "How are you? I am at the Asda buying crises [sic]. Was bored. Can't wait to pick you up." from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ody-in-boot-then-texted-im-bored-2368610.html

EDITED I should have said, I presume you are referring to the 9:25pm "boring" text?

 

[bijoux]

On the question of what the defence's line is, I note that when the screams were first mentioned by the prosecution as evidence pinning down the time of the assault (before the jury had visited the crime scene) the defence seemed to cast doubt on the prosecution's timeline and therefore on whether the screams heard were in fact Joanna's. But later on, on the issue of how long Joanna was strangled for before succumbing, they quoted the relatively short duration of the scream-scream-thud sequence (less than 10 seconds) and badgered the pathologist into stating that he couldn't be certain that this did not represent the strangulation period.

I understand how you are thinking Nausicaa, but to my mind the defense is just trying to establish that JY's death could have occurred in "less than 10 seconds", regardless of the time of death.

If the defense introduces a new time-line for the attack -> death, they can now apply the 10 sec scenario.

Either way it works for the defense.

 

[Sammyme]

I presume you are referring to the 9:25pm "bored" text?
VT sent 2 texts to TM, one at 9:25pm and the other at 10:30pm when he was in Asda

"He sent texts to his girlfriend Tanja at 9.25pm and 10.30pm, saying he was ”bored”. from http://swns.com/vincent-tabak-stran...ing-with-her-body-in-his-car-boot-101603.html

At 10.30pm, after buying crisps and beer, he texted her to say: "How are you? I am at the Asda buying crises [sic]. Was bored. Can't wait to pick you up." from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ody-in-boot-then-texted-im-bored-2368610.html

Yes he sent two texts and at the times you said. However, the swns is not wholly accurate in how it described them in the quoted report above.

To clarify:

The 9 25 pm text is the boring text.

The 10 30 pm text is the bored text.

The boring one, at 9 25 pm, said:

Missing you loads. It's boring here without you.

The bored one, at 10 30 pm, as you quoted above, said he was at Asda buying crisis and included the statement: Was bored.

 

[Sammyme]

On the question of what the defence's line is, I note that when the screams were first mentioned by the prosecution as evidence pinning down the time of the assault (before the jury had visited the crime scene) the defence seemed to cast doubt on the prosecution's timeline and therefore on whether the screams heard were in fact Joanna's. But later on, on the issue of how long Joanna was strangled for before succumbing, they quoted the relatively short duration of the scream-scream-thud sequence (less than 10 seconds) and badgered the pathologist into stating that he couldn't be certain that this did not represent the strangulation period.

Clearly they can't have it both ways. The screams can't have been Joanna's when they are convenient (suggesting a short strangulation period) but someone else's when they are inconvenient (suggesting a very early attack with little time for any provocation of any sort).

I may be wrong but this looks to me like a defence that is not out to sell the jury a clear alternative version of events but wishes simply to cast doubt (even incompatible doubts) on individual aspects of the prosecution's case. And if I am right that looks very weak to me, though it may be the best they can think of. After all, VT knows when he killed her. He knows whether she was in the boot when he went shopping. By implication he has a very good idea whether it was Joanna heard screaming or not. I hope the jury will be expecting to be told a credible version of events that contradicts the prosecution's case and that any vague calling into question of details without giving a consistent opposing account will be dismissed.

I agree with you that they are casting doubt on individual points. We need to look at them individually as well as looking to see if they hang together.

As I see it, they did not "cast doubt on the timeline and therefore on whether the screams..." From what I read, they simply cast doubt on the connection between the screams and Joanna: the prosecution said those screams were Joanna being attacked; the defence said they were not connected. That, it seemed to me was a way of exploiting an available chink in the prosecution's case because, for example, the screams could have come from someone else or somewhere else in a densely populated neighbourhood with lots of people around and no witness really close to the flat where Joanna was. Anything that can cast doubt on the prosecution's case serves the defence.

 

[bees]

Yes, the defence will probably say that there's no proof the screams were JY's so no proof that VT killed her very quickly after she arrived home. In order to sell a story that there were "events leading up to" the killing, they have to establish doubt that she was killed close to 8.50pm and they can do that because there is no conclusive evidence of TOD.

 

[bees]

That's the first time I have heard this or that he connected the taking of pictures of the snow with Joanna's flat. Interesting. Before, I'd seen it put together with a statement about going to the supermarket. Some of the reporting of this case does seem to be very bitty. We really need the full statements and evidence.

I agree we need the full statements. Meanwhile, here's an account of some of them from http://swns.com/jo-yeates-strangled-by-cold-and-calculated-vincent-tabak-111515.html

Tabak provided police with three statements, one before his arrest on December 31 in Amsterdam, one on January 20 and another on January 22 – which were ”false and dishonest accounts”.

When asked about his whereabouts on December 17, Tabak had said he had gone to take pictures of the snow after returning home from work at 7.15pm. The court also heard he had told police he had slipped on the ice outside Flat 1 – Jo’s flat – but had seen nothing unusual.

He then claimed to have gone shopping at Asda in Bedminster, Bristol, before picking his girlfriend up from her Christmas party, in Bristol city centre sometime after 1am.

But, after altering his statement several times, Tabak revealed he had moved his car into the driveway of Canynge Road to defrost it, during the evening. Mr Lickley said: ”He moved the car down by the side of the house, which we suggest was an opportunity to move the body of Miss Yeates in the boot – away from the front of the house.”

In police interviews, a jury heard he also let slip what he had for tea on December 17. Mr Lickley, reading from Mr Tabak’s statement, said: ”Pizza, I think.”

 

[veggiefan]

I may be wrong but this looks to me like a defence that is not out to sell the jury a clear alternative version of events but wishes simply to cast doubt (even incompatible doubts) on individual aspects of the prosecution's case.

I agree, and to some extent the defence are being handed this on a plate. While the prosection seem to be going for the very early time of before 9pm they have already admitted that the pathologist put the time of death between 9pm and 11pm. These matters are not precise, of course, but the average man in the street (aka the jury) are likely to deduce that the median time of 10pm is probably most likely.

 

[Sammyme]

Yes, the defence will probably say that there's no proof the screams were JY's so no proof that VT killed her very quickly after she arrived home. In order to sell a story that there were "events leading up to" the killing, they have to establish doubt that she was killed close to 8.50pm and they can do that because there is no conclusive evidence of TOD.

Yes, exactly. The prosecution's case is based on what they think happened. There is no proof as to what exactly happened or when, leading up to her killing.