GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #15

[bax]

i cant help wondering why that was just circulated. Just confirm for me that this is a new video. Was it circulated in error? There can only be one reason that it was not shown before and that it has some kind of evidence. Wonder if they have more CCTV that has not yet been shown? I wonder what the prosecution may have up their sleeves?

There has to be a video showing JY walking near the corner of Canygne road. It hasnt been published yet. Wonder why?

 

[Nausicaa]

Legally speaking, it all comes down to what they call the 'Dawson Test' which is "undertaken upon the basis of the knowledge gained by a sober and reasonable man as though he were present at the scene of the crime and watched the unlawful act being performed". So if you were standing there in the hallway (or wherever) and you saw VT put his hand or hands to JY's throat what would you think was happening? And what would you think was going to happen to JY as a result?

That's the minimalist version of events, isn't it, Aneurin ? I.e. it starts from the assumption that the jury believe the basic facts of Joanna's death as stated by VT. But as VT's account leaves about 40 out of 43 injuries unaccounted for, not to mention his own substantial cut on the arm (attagirl Jo !), the jury may prefer to assume that what actually happened was much worse than his account : his hands were placed in a much more obviously lethal position, the strangulation lasted much longer, he knocked her out to make it easier, etc.

 

[Sammyme]

I think I've said before, that's a tough story to sell. Almost by definition, if you grab somebody by the throat and start squeezing then that somebody is going to die. It's going to be difficult to convince a jury that any reasonable person would think otherwise.

Legally speaking, it all comes down to what they call the 'Dawson Test' which is "undertaken upon the basis of the knowledge gained by a sober and reasonable man as though he were present at the scene of the crime and watched the unlawful act being performed". So if you were standing there in the hallway (or wherever) and you saw VT put his hand or hands to JY's throat what would you think was happening? And what would you think was going to happen to JY as a result?

Yes, because it isn't just "holding", as he tried to portray it, as a non-threatening, non-lethal sort of action. And besides, before we even get to that, why, if you didn't intend to scare someone and if you wanted them to stop screaming, would you attack them, rather than backing off, removing yourself pronto, leaving them with no reason to fear or to scream? If you didn't intend harm, why do harm?

 

[Nausicaa]

Just about nothing. They have shot their bolt (they conclude tomorrow) ...

Hold on Veggie ; they continue to cross-examine defence witnesses, including, one assumes, VT himself, not to mention summing up at the end.

It strikes me that this is a trial in which the fact that a certain witness is called by the defence while another is called by the prosecution doesn't necessarily tell us in advance whether the witness is going in fact to carry the jury in the direction desired by the side who have asked (or subpoenaed) him to appear.

 

[Nausicaa]

Vincent Tabak refused to comment when detectives asked if he had made sexual advances towards his neighbour Joanna Yeates, her murder trial heard .

Tabak also declined to answer as police inquired whether he had been in the 25-year-old's bedroom or if she had "led him on", Bristol crown court was told.[End of quote]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/18/vincent-tabak-no-comment-joanna-yeates?newsfeed=true

The only reason for not replying to the question "Did you make sexual advances to her ?" is that he did. The only reason for not replying to the question, "Did she lead you on ?" is that she didn't.

 

[Sammyme]

Vincent Tabak refused to comment when detectives asked if he had made sexual advances towards his neighbour Joanna Yeates, her murder trial heard .

Tabak also declined to answer as police inquired whether he had been in the 25-year-old's bedroom or if she had "led him on", Bristol crown court was told.[End of quote]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/18/vincent-tabak-no-comment-joanna-yeates?newsfeed=true

Ah good grief.

Indeed. Such a question.

 

[aneurin]

That's the minimalist version of events, isn't it, Aneurin ? I.e. it starts from the assumption that the jury believe the basic facts of Joanna's death as stated by VT. But as VT's account leaves about 40 out of 43 injuries unaccounted for, not to mention his own substantial cut on the arm (attagirl Jo !), the jury may prefer to assume that what actually happened was much worse than his account : his hands were placed in a much more obviously lethal position, the strangulation lasted much longer, he knocked her out to make it easier, etc.

Yes it is.

 

[kINGFISHER]

He must have been in her bedroom because he could say he wasn't but then if he did they might have finger prints to prove he was and if he had said Jo lead him on they can see by that video that she completely ignored him.

 

[aneurin]

Yes, because it isn't just "holding", as he tried to portray it, as a non-threatening, non-lethal sort of action. And besides, before we even get to that, why, if you didn't intend to scare someone and if you wanted them to stop screaming, would you attack them, rather than backing off, removing yourself pronto, leaving them with no reason to fear or to scream? If you didn't intend harm, why do harm?

All of which are questions that I imagine will be put to VT by the prosecution in due course.

 

[Sammyme]

Something in the Guardian article linked to in Firefly's post above makes clearer what the defence was saying about the chaplain and the confession:

Clegg suggested his client had simply said: "I'm going to plead guilty." He had already told his lawyers that he had killed Yeates, Clegg said, adding that Tabak was "a depressed and distressed man unburdening himself".

 

[Cherwell]

Just about nothing. They have shot their bolt (they conclude tomorrow) and the sad fact of the matter is that they haven't managed to establish clearly what happened in Canynge Road that night.

It's now over to the defence. It looks like they have a lot to present, and William Clegg QC is extremely talented: he gnaws away at undermining the detail of the prosecution's case, as in the case Jill Dando where he defended Barry George.

Yes, but this is not a case of defending the innocent, is it? It's easy to lose sight of the fact that the prosecution do NOT have to prove that Tabak killed Joanna. So he can undermine away, the fact still remains that his client is guilty.

I don't know why you think the prosecution have "shot their bolt". The defence will not be having it all their own way from now on - there is plenty of cross-examination in store and I have no doubt that there will be some very awkward questions asked. Plus the prosecution's closing argument is still to come in which they may very well sell a more credible version of the events in view of what is slowly but surely being revealed.

So far much of what the prosecution have been doing is simply loading up the guns with ammunition. They'll start firing when VT takes the stand.

 

[bees]

Re VT declining to answer questions, I heard on the radio ( Radio 4 PM I think) that VT's lawyer advised him to give a "no comment" interview.

 

[Firefly75]

The only reason for not replying to the question "Did you make sexual advances to her ?" is that he did. The only reason for not replying to the question, "Did she lead you on ?" is that she didn't.

I'd agree with you.

(I suppose they have to ask this sort of stuff, but it really gets to me. Like when they were figuring out how much she'd had to drink and if she was over the limit etc. - does it matter? She did everything a sensible person would have done: gone home early, didn't have too much to drink, ra ra ra, and her life was taken in such a tragic way. Had she been drunk as a skunk, would his deeds have been any more acceptable? Had she encouraged him and then changed her mind, would that have given him the right to just do her in? How hard must that be for her loved ones to hear! I'm sure her boyfriend knows that she didn't lead VT on, nor anyone else, but in the fragile state he must be in, hearing that must be really painful.)

Clearly, if he made a pass at her, and she reacted less than enthusiastically (which clearly must have come as a surprise to him), it never crossed his mind to just bugger off - leave her alone and perhaps even apologize when he's well away?

 

[bees]

It sounds to me as though he answered "no comment" to most of the questions they posed and the majority of things he told them were via his written, prepared statements.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15350510

 

[Firefly75]

not to mention his own substantial cut on the arm (attagirl Jo !)

I totally missed that - attagirl, as you say!

[Forgive me for what I am about to say... Pity she didn't take the *@%£±$'s eye out!!!]

 

[goldielox]

The only reason for not replying to the question "Did you make sexual advances to her ?" is that he did. The only reason for not replying to the question, "Did she lead you on ?" is that she didn't.

Or he was advised to by his solicitor. I'm sure I read that he gave mostly "no comment" responses to their questions. If so, was the Guardian "cherry picking" in that report?

I don't personally put any weight on "no comment" responses. Despite the "give us an answer ..or inferences may be made if you don't" mullarkey you're damned in a police interview whether you answer or not, so the wisest move is still to say nothing to them at all.

 

[Clio]

Re VT declining to answer questions, I heard on the radio ( Radio 4 PM I think) that VT's lawyer advised him to give a "no comment" interview.

I think that they are referring to his lawyer at the time of his arrest aren't they?

From Martin Evans today

#VincentTabak's barrister William Clegg QC suggests the solicitor who represented him following his arrest was "out of her depth".

I guess implying that you cannot infer anything from the "no comments"

 

[edgedweller]

Yes, I think we all know that. I made the point about the train service because someone asked how JY could have contemplated making the journey without a car. The answer is that it can easily be done by train, which is undoubtedly what she intended, but she was advised not to do so because of the potential difficulty in getting back if the weather closed in (which it did) and trains were cancelled.

sorry that was me that raised the point about the car - I read somewhere something that implied she was thinking of visiting and that RS told her the traffic would be awful (perhaps they meant the weather). So I just assumed she had use of a car that night.

 

[masekwm]

DC Paul Derrick in the witness box. He denies there was tension between him and the duty solicitor acting for Tabak.

William Clegg, QC, cross examining the detective over his views on the experience of the initial acting solicitor.

DC Derrick asked if he thought Tabak's first lawyer was "out of her depth" . He replied "No"

 

[bax]

Back in the January when they were filming the Crimewatch, JY parents and GR made a TV appearence and asked everybody if they have noticed their close persons acting strange lately to contact police. After that Police got a call from a woman. Not named.
Waiting forward the testemony of TM! I guess she has to be the main witness.