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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
aneurin said:
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?
Click to expand...

Good point. Thanks for the "heads up".
 
veggiefan said:
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?
Click to expand...

All I can say is that I found it of great significance. I can recall the day that VT was arrested, when his identity was rapidly revealed on the web, and I went scurrying about the place trying to answer the question 'who the heck is this guy? When I came across the Sunday Express interview - although I think the content first appeared in the Daily Star of the previous day - I just went, shall we say, 'Oh, I see'.

I realise that I'm being very cryptic about this, but VT deserves a fair trial - proceedings are very active, and all that.
 
Thanks Cherwell and Aneurin.

I think I may have worked out your cryptic notion Aneurin.
 
veggiefan said:
Interesting to read in that report that the jury may be shown the inside of VT's flat on Friday. I guess I shouldn't speculate at this stage, but presumably this is because the prosecution may be alleging it is where the crime took place. I can't immediately think of any other reason why the jury should need to be shown the inside of his flat.
Click to expand...

They're also visiting the places Jo went to before getting home - the pub and the shops. I wonder if it's something to do with making the jury try to picture the reality of the scene, so that it really brings home to them the horror of what happened. Maybe they're being shown VT's flat so that they can see for themselves what he could see from his windows, as well as the layout of the flat, with the bedroom walls adjoining.
 
notsure said:
They're also visiting the places Jo went to before getting home - the pub and the shops. I wonder if it's something to do with making the jury try to picture the reality of the scene, so that it really brings home to them the horror of what happened.
Click to expand...

It's to help the jury visualise the places that will be referred to in court. Not to bring home the horror, though - it will be purely factual.

notsure said:
Maybe they're being shown VT's flat so that they can see for themselves what he could see from his windows, as well as the layout of the flat, with the bedroom walls adjoining.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but I don't think he could see into JY's flat - although he could have seen her coming down the path when she returned (if he was in, rather than following her as some people have suggested). It does seem that his flat has some significance to the case, though, if the jury are going to visit it.
 
I was surprised that the trial was not mentioned on the main BBC lunchtime news (it was all about Amanda Knox), or our BBC regional news, which covers the Bristol area.
 
veggiefan said:
Interesting to read in that report that the jury may be shown the inside of VT's flat on Friday. I guess I shouldn't speculate at this stage, but presumably this is because the prosecution may be alleging it is where the crime took place. I can't immediately think of any other reason why the jury should need to be shown the inside of his flat.
Click to expand...

The site visit is expected to take in all of these places before the jury may be given the opportunity to see the inside of both Miss Yeates’ and Tabak’s adjoining flat, both on the ground floor of number 44.
Click to expand...
Yes that is interesting. But some have speculated on here for some time that he may have been spying or would he have been able to see her lights go on etc or hear any movement in her flat , especially if the walls were thin. As her flat was extra tidy and Jo s parents noted a difference in the flat then I think it happened in hers. The case was mentioned briefly on local news three o'clock.
 
I feel that VT's flat was the scene of the crime for many reasons.

No one saw the body being removed.

If the timeline of screams at circa 9pm hold water, what could have precipitated VT proactively knocking on her door and her being dead within 15 minutes of returning home?

If the body is in VT's flat he has more time to formulate an elaborate escape plan as he "controls" the crime scene.

The fly in the ointment is the staging of boots/keys which means VT has to enter the next door flat regardless as these items were found there and the possible removal of a surfing bag. ( At a time of his choosing of course. )

Btw, if VT states that his flat was the crime scene I think he has a better chance of convincing a jury he was not proactively seeking to murder his neighbour. The lying (sp Freud?) in wait idea wouldn't apply.
 
kINGFISHER said:
Yes that is interesting. But some have speculated on here for some time that he may have been spying or would he have been able to see her lights go on etc or hear any movement in her flat , especially if the walls were thin. As her flat was extra tidy and Jo s parents noted a difference in the flat then I think it happened in hers. The case was mentioned briefly on local news three o'clock.
Click to expand...

I think JY's flat was the crime scene too. Wasn't VT's flat put up for rent again a while back. I'm not sure but I don't think this would be allowed until after the trial, if it was the crime scene.
 
Deckards theory could be right he waited and listened for Jo to come home knocked at her door forced her around to his flat, thus the screams , all thought out to dispel the idea he was lying in wait, had it well thought out. Or was she killed in her own flat and moved to his later.
In that report it said the jury may be shown the inside of VT's flat on Friday I think so the flat might not have been sold ,not sure . So sad to see the local news showing the picture of Jo holding her cat. Neither JY or Tabaks relatives in court today, prosecution case supposed to start on Friday. Press allowed to use twitter from court so news is going to come out quickly. Just a while to wait , let's hope this does not become another MK case.
 
kINGFISHER said:
Deckards theory could be right he waited and listened for Jo to come home knocked at her door forced her around to his flat, thus the screams , all thought out to dispel the idea he was lying in wait, had it well thought out. Or was she killed in her own flat and moved to his later.
In that report it said the jury may be shown the inside of VT's flat on Friday I think so the flat might not have been sold ,not sure . So sad to see the local news showing the picture of Jo holding her cat. Neither JY or Tabaks relatives in court today, prosecution case supposed to start on Friday. Press allowed to use twitter from court so news is going to come out quickly. Just a while to wait , let's hope this does not become another MK case.
Click to expand...

The press were fairly quick to come out with plans of the two flats, drawing attention to the bricked up wall. I wondered back then if he may of somehow constructed a peep hole, or even removed the floor boards so he could move between the two flats?

He was interested in 'space' in his job, I wonder if any of that may have reflected in any obsession he may of had with her?
 
Further to Deckards comment . She came home put the pizza and bottles on the table opened one and drunk half, then the knock on the door and the abduction. Then as Deckard said he came back later took the bag arranged things etc , did he at that point also take the missing pizza.

Redgoblin
The press were fairly quick to come out with plans of the two flats, drawing attention to the bricked up wall. I wondered back then if he may of somehow constructed a peep hole, or even removed the floor boards so he could move between the two flats?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a peephole. The partition did seem to be of great interest at one point.
 
kINGFISHER said:
he came back later took the bag arranged things etc , did he at that point also take the missing pizza.
Click to expand...

From Tesco's online shopping site the Tesco Finest Mozzarella and Basil Pesto pizza is not suitable for microwaving.

Oven has to be preheated to 200 deg C with a cooking time of 6 to 8 minutes. No evidence that JY had eaten it. There wasn't enough time from her arriving home, decamping her bags, preheating oven and then cooking the pizza.

I think she did cook the pizza though. Makes sense if returning from a fair walk from work to pub to shops to home on a Friday night. Kick back and relax, open the cider and get some hot food going.

If the crime scene was VT's flat, VT may have had no knowledge at all that the pizza was half way through cooking before JY was abducted from her doorway or came round to his flat for whatever reason ( confrontation etc.. ).

JY is dead and VT has time to figure his next move. As he knew GR was away he may have thought it safe to wait until the early hours before going to plant the items next door. He only discovered the overcooked pizza still in the convection/microwave when stashing JY's keys in her bag on the kitchen work surface and decides to get rid of it and the packaging ( most likely close at hand ) to muddy the timeline.

Whichever way you want to slice this the amount of deceptive planning involved to dispose of the body is pretty damning to his cause. You can't accidentally drive a body several miles from the scene without knowing what you are doing.
 
Deckard said:
Whichever way you want to slice this the amount of deceptive planning involved to dispose of the body is pretty damning to his cause. You can't accidentally drive a body several miles from the scene without knowing what you are doing.
Click to expand...

But the case will revolve around whether the crime was planned (murder) or not (manslaughter). What happened after it was committed is unlikely to have any bearing on this, unless VT had done something to suggest that the act was premeditated (such as preparing a hiding place for the body in advance of the killing, which doesn't seem likely to have been the case).

Disposing of the body certainly reflects badly on VT's character, and as such is likely to affect his sentence, but it does not of itself turn an act of (claimed) manslaughter into murder.
 
VT could have taken Jo's body in a bag to his flat as a stop-gap, to the vehicle used to transport it elsewhere.

How would he have known for sure that a friend or family member would not call to see JY, especially since she was on her own and not answering calls. He would not have known she didn't answer her phone promptly.

If she was killed in her flat shortly after returning home, I doubt he would have left her body there until the early hours of Saturday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 179 more.
Total: 3,445 (members: 180, guests: 3,265)

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
3,265
Total visitors
3,445
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,605
Messages
18,174,485
Members
232,750
Latest member
Lashaundaspurlockmissing
Back
Top