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

[Robin Hood]

So it seems we have 3 incidents, 2 screams 9 pm'ish and a shout on the saturday heard by 'Kingdom'.

Edited to mean 3 separate reports, possibly 2 incidents.

 

[Robin Hood]

Read 'Kingdoms' post on 6th may 21:24

http://www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94027&p=1546070#post1546070

 

[kINGFISHER]

On a different note. Our thoughts must go to Jo s parents and Greg after all they have been through and now they have to face four weeks of harrowing details about Jo s murder.

I can't help feeling that because he is from a respectable background and normally of good character, as far as we know, that this will be harped on by the defence no matter how bad the crime. Would like to know the type of people selected for jury.

 

[whiterum]

On a different note. Our thoughts must go to Jo s parents and Greg after all they have been through and now they have to face four weeks of harrowing details about Jo s murder.

I can't help feeling that because he is from a respectable background and normally of good character, as far as we know, that this will be harped on by the defence no matter how bad the crime. Would like to know the type of people selected for jury.

Exactly, that's one thing for sure we will be hearing more of how he is well-educated, intelligent and has a good family and a good job. That he is a sweet, gentle person, not capable of murdering anybody.

This would better describe his victim’s life but because of him she is no longer living to enjoy it. Because of him her good, loving family will forever grieve for their beautiful daughter whose body was found dumped and frozen like a piece of garbage by this so called sweet, gentle man.

 

[aneurin]

Read 'Kingdoms' post on 6th may 21:24

http://www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94027&p=1546070#post1546070

It's clear that 'kingdom' heard and/or saw something. Whether that 'something' has anything to do with the case is another question.

I recall in the Soham murders that there was a taxi driver who saw a car swerving all over the road because the driver was struggling with two girls inside. (Or something like that.) At the time it was treated as a 'lead', but in the end it had nothing whatsoever to do with Holly and Jessica's disappearance at all, and was probably just some hyperactive kids convinced that they had a god-given right to go to McDonalds no matter what their dad said.

 

[Robin Hood]

It's clear that 'kingdom' heard and/or saw something. Whether that 'something' has anything to do with the case is another question.

I recall in the Soham murders that there was a taxi driver who saw a car swerving all over the road because the driver was struggling with two girls inside. (Or something like that.) At the time it was treated as a 'lead', but in the end it had nothing whatsoever to do with Holly and Jessica's disappearance at all, and was probably just some hyperactive kids convinced that they had a god-given right to go to McDonalds no matter what their dad said.

Agreed.

 

[whiterum]

I know it has been said that JY didn’t generally answer calls promptly. It would be strange though, if she had text a friend a question without checking periodically for a reply or responding to a text alert.

When she arrived home around 21:00 she would probably have hung up her coat, most likely with her phone still in the pocket.

Around only twenty minutes later at 21:20 MW replied to her text.

It seems to me that she never checked or handled her phone again since the time she arrived home around 21;00 because if she had done so, it’s most likely that she would have then placed the phone in a more visible location, not put it back in the coat pocket.

Just adding some weight to the thought that she was killed shortly after entering her flat.

 

[notsure]

Exactly, that's one thing for sure we will be hearing more of how he is well-educated, intelligent and has a good family and a good job. That he is a sweet, gentle person, not capable of murdering anybody.

This is what fascinates me, though: can somebody who has been nothing but "normal" and "decent" all their life kill somebody in that way in one moment of craziness? Or must there have been something wrong all along? I don't know anything about criminal psychology, so I'm really hoping that this case will throw some light on this question.

 

[kINGFISHER]

I know it has been said that JY didn’t generally answer calls promptly. It would be strange though, if she had text a friend a question without checking periodically for a reply or responding to a text alert.

When she arrived home around 21:00 she would probably have hung up her coat, most likely with her phone still in the pocket.

Around only twenty minutes later at 21:20 MW replied to her text.

It seems to me that she never checked or handled her phone again since the time she arrived home around 21;00 because if she had done so, it’s most likely that she would have then placed the phone in a more visible location, not put it back in the coat pocket.

Just adding some weight to the thought that she was killed shortly after entering her flat.

Good point , if it did take place in such a short time would this maybe point more to a premeditated frenzied attack , like Nosture said was there something deep seated in his psyche all along.

 

[kINGFISHER]

<C. Lying in Wait>
[The defendant is guilty of first degree murder if the People have proved that the defendant murdered while lying in wait or immediately thereafter. The defendant murdered by lying in wait if:
1. (he/she) concealed (his/her) purpose from the person killed;
2. (he/she) waited and watched for an opportunity to act;
AND
3. Then, from a position of advantage, (he/she) intended to and did make a surprise attack on the person killed.
The lying in wait does not need to continue for any particular period of time, but its duration must show a state of mind equivalent to deliberation and premeditation. [Deliberation means carefully weighing the considerations for and against a choice and, knowing the consequences, deciding to act. An act is done with premeditation if the decision to commit the act is made before the act is done.]
[A person can conceal his or her purpose even if the person killed is aware of the person's physical presence.]
[The concealment can be accomplished by ambush or some other secret plan.]

The only problem with this is he would know he was taking a gamble and be at risk of being classed as a suspect living so close but he also knew Greg would not be there.

 

[aneurin]

This is what fascinates me, though: can somebody who has been nothing but "normal" and "decent" all their life kill somebody in that way in one moment of craziness? Or must there have been something wrong all along? I don't know anything about criminal psychology, so I'm really hoping that this case will throw some light on this question.

Well I think I know the answer, but I ain't saying anything until the verdict is in. And this is where I found the answer - http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view...incent-TabakJo-Yeates-Day-I-met-Vincent-Tabak

 

[Cherwell]

<C. Lying in Wait>
[The defendant is guilty of first degree murder if the People have proved that the defendant murdered while lying in wait or immediately thereafter. The defendant murdered by lying in wait if:
1. (he/she) concealed (his/her) purpose from the person killed;
2. (he/she) waited and watched for an opportunity to act;
AND
3. Then, from a position of advantage, (he/she) intended to and did make a surprise attack on the person killed.
The lying in wait does not need to continue for any particular period of time, but its duration must show a state of mind equivalent to deliberation and premeditation. [Deliberation means carefully weighing the considerations for and against a choice and, knowing the consequences, deciding to act. An act is done with premeditation if the decision to commit the act is made before the act is done.]
[A person can conceal his or her purpose even if the person killed is aware of the person's physical presence.]
[The concealment can be accomplished by ambush or some other secret plan.]

The only problem with this is he would know he was taking a gamble and be at risk of being classed as a suspect living so close but he also knew Greg would not be there.

Another problem is that you appear to have copied and pasted this from a US website, so it has no relevance to UK law.

 

[veggiefan]

Well, the case is on tomorrow's list for Bristol Crown Court, starting at 10.45 (following the annual ceremony of Reading the Letters Patent to open the new legal year at 10.30). So, not long to wait, although I dare say it will be some time before all the details are made oublic.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Another problem is that you appear to have copied and pasted this from a US website, so it has no relevance to UK law.

Yes you are right no divisions in English Law regarding this. But that pasted piece as you put it has characteristics of JY case. A statue was passed 1939 in England to the Crown to deny anyone who murdered while " lying in wait" not to be pardoned . So this means it was a particular heinous crime, I take it the same law applies now, replaced by first degree murder correct me if I am wrong .

 

[Robin Hood]

Well I think I know the answer, but I ain't saying anything until the verdict is in. And this is where I found the answer - http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view...incent-TabakJo-Yeates-Day-I-met-Vincent-Tabak

Aneurin, I don't seem to be able to read the article :maddening:

 

[Cherwell]

Yes you are right no divisions in English Law regarding this. But that pasted piece as you put it has characteristics of JY case. A statue was passed 1939 in England to the Crown to deny anyone who murdered while " lying in wait" not to be pardoned . So this means it was a particular heinous crime, I take it the same law applies now, replaced by first degree murder correct me if I am wrong .

Yes: if this is your source, I think '1939' is a typo. It says the "origin is ancient" and the footnote says 1389.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3477776

So probably not safe to assume the same law still applies.

 

[Cherwell]

Aneurin, I don't seem to be able to read the article :maddening:

Try here.

I hope it's not the "tight-fitting cycling shorts" :silenced:

 

[veggiefan]

A statue was passed 1939 in England to the Crown to deny anyone who murdered while " lying in wait" not to be pardoned . So this means it was a particular heinous crime, I take it the same law applies now, replaced by first degree murder correct me if I am wrong .

The rules over pardons have changed enormously since 1939, so I very much doubt that there is anything about "lying in wait" still on the statute book.

Incidentally, it's perhaps worth pointing out for our American friends that there is no concept of "first degree murder" in the UK. The charge is murder, which basically means homicide with intent to kill. Lying in wait could point to such an intent, but it could equally indicate an intention to merely surprise the victim. It might then be argued that the victim was so surprised that she struck out in alarm, and the perpetrator then retaliated, killing the victim in an act of involuntary manslaughter. I have no idea if that will be VT's defence, other than to point out that he is arguing manslaughter.

 

[aneurin]

Aneurin, I don't seem to be able to read the article :maddening:

Yes, I just realised that the link doesn't work anymore. Or actually it does work, except that the content has been 'edited out'. What VT said (the important bit) was;

&#8220;I only come back here at weekends for now with all the upset. I wasn&#8217;t here on the night she went missing, I was away and I don&#8217;t know anyone who saw or heard anything. It&#8217;s very upsetting that something like this has happened. This is a nice, safe, friendly area.

&#8220;The feeling around here is not a nice one now, it&#8217;s as if the area has been blighted by what happened. We are all very sad about it, and although I didn&#8217;t know Miss Yeates, I am deeply saddened by what happened.&#8221;

I think I used the phrase 'psychologically revealing' in some earlier thread to describe the statement.

Yes you are right no divisions in English Law regarding this. But that pasted piece as you put it has characteristics of JY case. A statue was passed 1939 in England to the Crown to deny anyone who murdered while " lying in wait" not to be pardoned . So this means it was a particular heinous crime, I take it the same law applies now, replaced by first degree murder correct me if I am wrong .

As far as what the law in England and Wales has to say on the question of homicide, I'd start with the CPS - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/

Well, the case is on tomorrow's list for Bristol Crown Court, starting at 10.45 (following the annual ceremony of Reading the Letters Patent to open the new legal year at 10.30). So, not long to wait, although I dare say it will be some time before all the details are made oublic.

Good to have the date confirmed. Presumably this thread will therefore close at 10.45 whatever it is, as the case will no longer be 'Currently awaiting trial' and feature under 'Trials' instead?

 

[veggiefan]

Well I think I know the answer, but I ain't saying anything until the verdict is in. And this is where I found the answer

Cherwell has kindly posted a working link, but I don't find anything of significance in the Express's "exclusive interview". It's just a couple of questions posed by a door-stepping reporter, and VT answers in very anodine terms.

I don't see anything there that could be held against VT in court. Even if there was, it's not against the law to lie to the press - after all, politicians and media celebrities do so almost daily!

Have I perhaps missed something of greater significance?