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

[moshimoshi]

I agree, how narrow is that verge, it's almost on the road. As you say he could have driven on anywhere and found a better spot. It's as if what the hell this will do.

No this guy is not crying on seeing what he did to Jo it's because of what is going to be done to him because of it.

Anyone who goes for burgers, hours after killing, carrying, dumping a human being has no genuine emotion, none whatsoever imo



J

Well, I wouldn't read that into it personally. When you think about it everyone needs to eat no matter what happened a few hours before. Going for a burger is the easiest way of feeding yourself.

If someone carefully prepared a recipe meal, laid a table, brought out the silverware, then I'd read something into it.

 

[Redgoblin]

At the moment, I'm still not seeing Murder. I don't see how it happened but it is all very strange. Remember, as far as we know, up until those few hours last December he had a good job, a nice life and suddenly it all changed in seconds.

Perhaps we are seeing the real man in the dock, who is actually very upset at what he did and the consequence of his actions. I'm sure if I was in his place and her death wasn't intentional that I would be crying too!

He either did intend to kill her and is lying about it, or it was as his defence are claiming it to be, and that is manslaughter.

Given what we know of him, I'd be more inclined to think of it as manslaughter, although some of the facts so far presented by both the prosecution and the defence have still left me with question marks.

The fact that she was killed by strangulation has led a lot of us here to believe that she was murdered, because in our minds and at least on paper it seems it would require some level of premeditation to kill by strangulation, however if it really was manslaughter I'd be more inclined to believe something like I proposed on this post as far fetched as that may sound :

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7232658&postcount=908"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7232658&postcount=908[/ame]

No one knows except VT, and only he and his defence can shed light on this in the coming weeks.

 

[masekwm]

I'm waiting for the defence, I studied Law and know there is a lot of weird cases out there.

The LSD/snake case.
The recent campervan case

 

[stmarysmead]

He was never a "normal" man. No normal man escalates into putting his hands around the neck of a stranger with whom he has NO history...in the very few minutes Jo was at home.

Did he have a violent temper that erupted unexpectedly? We have not heard this to date. If there is no evidence of an impulse to rage...then to me it suggests calculation. Either he targeted Jo...or she caught him in some act he needed to cover up or lose everything.

How many of us have put hands in anger around a strangers neck in a matter of minutes? VT either has a history of rage or there is MUCH more to this murder. No one "accidentally" grabs a stranger of a much smaller size...much more defenseless...and "accidentally" chokes them to their death.

You might push, or slap...but choke the life out of? No, VT is a murderer.

 

[Luna15]

He was never a "normal" man. No normal man escalates into putting his hands around the neck of a stranger with whom he has NO history...in the very few minutes Jo was at home.

Did he have a violent temper that erupted unexpectedly? We have not heard this to date. If there is no evidence of an impulse to rage...then to me it suggests calculation. Either he targeted Jo...or she caught him in some act he needed to cover up or lose everything.

How many of us have put hands in anger around a strangers neck in a matter of minutes? VT either has a history of rage or there is MUCH more to this murder. No one "accidentally" grabs a stranger of a much smaller size...much more defenseless...and "accidentally" chokes them to their death.

You might push, or slap...but choke the life out of? No, VT is a murderer.

Given what we have heard about him and the number of people that jumped to his defence when he was arrested, a lot of people (his family/girlfreinds family/work colleagues) expressing their disbelief... the college where he went even set up a 'fighting fund' such was their belief in him....

I am wondering if he went round there knowing that Greg was away, perhaps he was just being neighbourly/saying if she needed anything in his absence - perhaps he came across as 'awkward', a bit 'nerdy', 'overpleasing' and she abruptly told him 'thanks but no thanks' perhaps it evoked past feelings of not being accepted (remember his writings about finding it hard to settle in this country?) and it escalated from there...

I just struggle because of peoples utter faith in his innocence.... really baffling

 

[whiterum]

Well, I wouldn't read that into it personally. When you think about it everyone needs to eat no matter what happened a few hours before. Going for a burger is the easiest way of feeding yourself.

If someone carefully prepared a recipe meal, laid a table, brought out the silverware, then I'd read something into it.

That would put most people off their food, no but not him he's walking hand in hand to the burger bar with TM, how cosy,while the young girl he strangled is disgarded bruised and bloodied on a lonely lane not too far away. This man is cold hearted and despicable imo.

 

[stmarysmead]

How many of us...if we had hit and killed a dog...experienced ITS PAIN...saw it bloodied, dead, and broken on the side of a lane...could pick up a friend, eat burgers and act as if nothing had happened?
There is no reason...except his own perversion...being caught in the flat or masturbating...that could bring a normal man to such a rage in just moments...with a young woman with whom he had no history.

 

[Redgoblin]

I'm about 75%-80% convinced of the murder charge, even though I've put together my own thoughts on his supposed innocence.

I think I'm right in thinking there is still probably about 2 weeks left of the trial, so imagine there is going to be more revelations from both camps.

 

[whiterum]

At the moment, I'm still not seeing Murder. I don't see how it happened but it is all very strange. Remember, as far as we know, up until those few hours last December he had a good job, a nice life and suddenly it all changed in seconds.

Perhaps we are seeing the real man in the dock, who is actually very upset at what he did and the consequence of his actions. I'm sure if I was in his place and her death wasn't intentional that I would be crying too!

Jo his victim had a good job, a nice life and suddenly it all changed in seconds because he took it away for good. He is still here, maybe one day he will get it back, but Jo won't.

He's crying for himself, he tried to set up an innocent man to take the rap but it didn't work, that is the real man.

 

[badhorsie]

I think it is three weeks until the end of the trial

 

[Nausicaa]

I have heard a barrister at the Old Bailey (outside the courtroom) expressly suggest to his client that he should try to turn on the tears at certain points during the proceedings.
VT's tears may be sincere or factitious and if sincere they may be selfish or the result of genuine regret at what he has done : there is no way of telling at present. What matters is that the jury should not allow their evaluation of the evidence to be affected by them in any way.
Neither, IMO, should they be thinking that if he was a lovely guy with no known signs of murderous tendencies, he can't have committed murder and it must be manslaughter. Given the fact that she was killed in a way that naturally requires the intention to kill, the only legitimate way to a manslaughter verdict that I can see would be for the defence to offer us a credible scenario showing how he could strangle her without the intention to cause her death.
And if instead they start wheeling in psychiatrists to show that this highly-intelligent, soon-to-be-married, bilingual man with a good job and happy background and life was in fact the victim of some recently discovered syndrome making him not responsible for his actions, it will deserve a loud snort.

 

[Nausicaa]

...he tried to set up an innocent man to take the rap but it didn't work, that is the real man.

Yes, I can't get as worked up as some people are about his disposal of the body, his lies, his staying cool and acting his part convincingly after the crime. All that to me seems inevitable, after the act, if you don't want to be convicted of murder. What is unforgivable, apart from killing Joanna, is his deliberate attempt to get CJ to carry the can. Definitely not cricket. And incidentally if we still had the death penalty for murder it would have been in effect a new attempted murder of CJ.

 

[kINGFISHER]

At the moment, I'm still not seeing Murder. I don't see how it happened but it is all very strange. Remember, as far as we know, up until those few hours last December he had a good job, a nice life and suddenly it all changed in seconds.

Perhaps we are seeing the real man in the dock, who is actually very upset at what he did and the consequence of his actions. I'm sure if I was in his place and her death wasn't intentional that I would be crying too!

I would think most normal people would feel repulsed at what they had just done they would not be able to function properly, let alone eat or take a Pizza from the person they just killed. Forty three injuries . I don't like to say it at this time as we have not heard his side but I think his behaviour is no more than that of an animal whichever way you look at it.

 

[Cadfael]

Where does it state anywhere that he rang the police from Holland with information which was defamatory to CJ and explicitly tried to frame him? I have only read that he and his girlfriend rang the police with information regarding CJ, nothing I have read suggested this was negative information and he was trying to frame him as many suggest, or have I missed something??

 

[Clio]

Where does it state anywhere that he rang the police from Holland with information which was defamatory to CJ and explicitly tried to frame him? I have only read that he and his girlfriend rang the police with information regarding CJ, nothing I have read suggested this was negative information and he was trying to frame him as many suggest, or have I missed something??

I think this might be what is being referred to.

Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend were in Holland. They contacted the detective and offered that they might have some information about their landlord.

Tabak, who made the phone call, said he had seen Mr Jefferies’ car facing one way on the night Miss Yeates went missing, and facing a different direction the next day.

http://swns.com/vincent-tabak-contacted-detectives-following-chris-jefferies-arrest-101809.html

He later admits that this was his "story"

He also tried to “mislead and manipulate” the police by attempting to shift the blame on to his landlord, Christopher Jefferies, the court heard.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...oon-after-he-was-bored-and-buying-crisps.html

 

[Cadfael]

Ah that makes more sense! I read that him and his gf rang the police but didn't read what was said! Thanks

 

[kINGFISHER]

Where does it state anywhere that he rang the police from Holland with information which was defamatory to CJ and explicitly tried to frame him? I have only read that he and his girlfriend rang the police with information regarding CJ, nothing I have read suggested this was negative information and he was trying to frame him as many suggest, or have I missed something??

You are right it does not say they were trying to frame him as far as we
know they reported what they knew. But still all the time VT knew different.

It was stated in one report that TM rang police from Holland to give formation about CJ. So was this from her own observations of CJ or was she influenced by VT. Think I noticed also they mentioned they thought on occasions CJ had gone into their flat when they were not there.

 

[aneurin]

Given what we have heard about him and the number of people that jumped to his defence when he was arrested, a lot of people (his family/girlfreinds family/work colleagues) expressing their disbelief... the college where he went even set up a 'fighting fund' such was their belief in him....

Well people often find it difficult to believe that someone they know is capable of homicide. As to the 'fighting fund', I'm not sure that there ever was one. As far as I recall, it was Paul Vermeij (the Tabak family spin doctor) who made the annoucement that some staff and students at Eindhoven University were setting up such a fund. The University said 'no comment' and that's the last time anyone heard of it as far as I'm aware.

... Given the fact that she was killed in a way that naturally requires the intention to kill, the only legitimate way to a manslaughter verdict that I can see would be for the defence to offer us a credible scenario showing how he could strangle her without the intention to cause her death.
And if instead they start wheeling in psychiatrists to show that this highly-intelligent, soon-to-be-married, bilingual man with a good job and happy background and life was in fact the victim of some recently discovered syndrome making him not responsible for his actions, it will deserve a loud snort.

The prosecution (of course) has the advantage over us muggles in that they know what route the defence will be taking. Some of the evidence presented so far would appear to suggest that the defence will be going for common law unlawful act manslaughter as opposed to any other option. Which is a tough story to sell in the circumstances in my opinion.

 

[bijoux]

I agree that stating the change in direction of CJ's car or that he might've entered his tenant's flats on occasion was not incriminating (at least not like AK's outright slanderous comment that her boss had killed MK *Italian murder case*), but don't you think LE must have been on to VT before they traveled to Holland for the interview. All that way to take a supposed short statement but then they took VT's DNA sample and the interview lasted hours? At this point it seems like VT was becoming more paranoid.
Yes, KINGFISHER, VT did know better.

Someone previously posted this article which explains FBI profiling.

Here's an excerpt:

"The basic premise is that behavior reflects personality," explains retired FBI agent Gregg McCrary. In a homicide case, for example, FBI agents glean insight into personality through questions about the murderer's behavior at four crime phases:

Antecedent: What fantasy or plan, or both, did the murderer have in place before the act? What triggered the murderer to act some days and not others?


Method and manner: What type of victim or victims did the murderer select? What was the method and manner of murder: shooting, stabbing, strangulation or something else?

Body disposal: Did the murder and body disposal take place all at one scene, or multiple scenes?

Post offense behavior: Is the murderer trying to inject himself into the investigation by reacting to media reports or contacting investigators?

I am curious as to whether or not the profiler LE brought in helped identify VT.

Will that be brought up in court?

 

[Nausicaa]

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:

"I am 100% certain that Chris Jefferies, under suspicion for the murder of Jo Yeates, will be charged with murder within the next 12 hours."

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

"My source is an idiot and wrong!!!"

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.