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

[brownbread]

supposition!

he might be very strong, and his build suggests that he is not only tall but wide and solid. I don't accept the argument that upper body wouldn't be strong - certainly with conditions of fight or flight + adrenalin, he would be able to make that lift.

n.b. he also had salt from ASDA to make his lifting position easier.

Where are you going with that argument? Clearly he DID move her, if not over the wall, then up against it -as indicated by the blood on the wall - but then left the body on the verge.

If you're suggesting he WAS strong enough to lift her over, why would he NOT have done so?

Given all his other actions have been consistent with an attempt to conceal and hide from what he did, why would he deliberately leave her body in almost plain sight? Makes no sense.

Everything points to him trying but failing to lift her over the wall.

 

[Paulette]

If he wasn't a detached, crazy person he would have immediately called for paramedics.

 

[brownbread]

Geez...The whole day of testimony is over before I even get up! West Coast, USA.

It appears Tanya was his 1st girlfriend. Vera strange. He has no experience of women. He's definitely not a normal man.

He thought Joanna was being flirty. His testimony doesn't make any sense. If she was flirting with him, why would she reject "a kiss"? Why would she scream at being kissed? Women just don't do that - they turn their heads or say "don't do that" - they don't scream!

I don't know, I think I'd scream. IF this was the way events played out, then it would seem it was more likely he made a sudden impulsive move on her rather than gently going in for a kiss. If not a scream he could certainly have expected a few choice expletives and a slap from me. Not just a demure turn of the head!

The way this has been presented makes it all sound a bit 'Of Mice and Men' frankly. Whether I buy it or not I don't know.

 

[Clio]

I find that odd for a person of sound mind.

I know we can assume that some men would try it on after ten minutes, but a man in a long term relationship who had previously never had a girlfriend? Hardly cocky lethario material is he? Another example of the facts not matching up to the picture he paints.

The only girlfiend he did have (TM), he met through Guardian Soulmates. I wouldn't be surprised if the defence claim that he is inexperienced with women and could therefore easiliy have misread JY's friendliness for much more

 

[bijoux]

Now where have I heard that one before? :waitasec:

Geezus, that was frightening!

Now I'm going to have nightmares!

 

[veggiefan]

Further to the principle that normality is presumed unless disproved, the fact that VT's story clearly contains untruths and deliberate self-serving omissions entitles the jury to assume that he is lying ...

Hmm. I think it's more likely that the judge will remind the jury that the only thing that they can assume is that VT is innocent of murder (but clearly guilty of manslaughter), unless the prosecution have convinced them beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of murder.

I think he is, but hard evidence of murder is limited in this case.

Does anyone know anything about the judge - whether he has a reputation as a toughie or a softie ?

He conducted the first ever case under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, where he imposed a substantial fine for corporate manslaughter, but then allowed the company to pay it off over a period of 10 years. More than that I don't know.

 

[Cherwell]

Geezus, that was frightening!

Now I'm going to have nightmares!

Sorry, bijoux. It was a massive case in the UK so I was forgetting not everyone would be familiar with it overseas.

 

[veggiefan]

It appears Tanya was his 1st girlfriend. Vera strange. He has no experience of women.

I think a lot of people might find that comment rather insulting. I certainly do - I didn't regularly date women until my late 20s, and I married at the same age that VT has now attained.

Mrs Vf and I have now been happily married for more than 30 years, which is a darn sight longer than those of our contemporaries who married at 17, divorced at 20, and who then got through several more partners before the age of 30.

 

[notsure]

If he's convicted of manslaughter, will it set a precedent that killing someone because they want to stop them screaming is manslaughter, not murder? It's almost the victim's fault, in a way, for making the person have the need to silence them. Yes, the victim is in fact responsible.

I'm surprised the defence didn't say that if JY hadn't screamed, she would still be alive today (you know, to go along with the other stuff about if she'd only had one more drink at the pub, etc.).

 

[Sammyme]

Not sure if anyone has already posted a link but this report from SWNS has a bit more detail than we get from the tweets:

http://swns.com/tearful-vincent-tabak-apologises-to-jo-yeates-family-201533.html

It's interesting because it shows the prosecutor is certainly not pulling his punches.

 

[notsure]

I wonder if anyone is moved by his tears, or just thinking of the Rihanna lyric:

"Don’t tell me you’re sorry cause you’re not
...when I know you’re only sorry you got caught"

 

[kINGFISHER]

I think a lot of people might find that comment rather insulting. I certainly do - I didn't regularly date women until my late 20s, and I married at the same age that VT has now attained.

Mrs Vf and I have now been happily married for more than 30 years, which is a darn sight longer than those of our contemporaries who married at 17, divorced at 20, and who then got through several more partners before the age of 30.

I don't think it was meant to be insulting ,I find it unusual as well especially that he had to then use a dating agency . I wonder if he had some odd quirks and through the years was rejected by woman. We don't know what this might have done to him, or he to others.

 

[notsure]

Not sure if anyone has already posted a link but this report from SWNS has a bit more detail than we get from the tweets:

http://swns.com/tearful-vincent-tabak-apologises-to-jo-yeates-family-201533.html

It's interesting because it shows the prosecutor is certainly not pulling his punches.

Yes, there was quite a bit on our local tv news (Bristol region).

 

[Nausicaa]

Hmm. I think it's more likely that the judge will remind the jury that the only thing that they can assume is that VT is innocent of murder (but clearly guilty of manslaughter), unless the prosecution have convinced them beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of murder.

I think he is, but hard evidence of murder is limited in this case.

The presumption of innocence does not, I believe, entail the presumption that a person did not intend his deliberate act to produce its normal results. If it did mean that it would be open to every criminal to assert that he did not actually think of the bad aspect or result of what he was doing at the time and therefore had no mens rea. There is never "hard evidence" of an intention to kill someone except the fact of doing something that is well known to be usually fatal in effect.

 

[aneurin]

Everyone knows that strangulation tends to result in death and people who are not drugged or insane advert, when doing things that take a certain time, to the likelihood that their acts will produce their normal effects. Even if his primary conscious intention was to produce short-term silence, that does not excuse him from murder if he actually foresaw the likelihood that his act - aimed by him at producing silence - was likely also to produce death or very serious injury.

Further to the principle that normality is presumed unless disproved, the fact that VT's story clearly contains untruths and deliberate self-serving omissions entitles the jury to assume that he is lying when he makes the highly improbable claim that he failed even to advert in passing, before or during throttling, to the consequences his action in fact produced.

That's more or less exactly what the law says as well. It asks whether a "sober and reasonable man" would have realised that carrying out a particular course of action would inevitably result in death or serious injury to someone.
The fact that the accused in any particular case might well be neither 'sober' nor 'reasonable' does not matter in the slightest.

All that said, a great deal is going to depend on the judge's final instructions to the jury on the nature of the mens rea of murder and how to evaluate its presence. Does anyone know anything about the judge - whether he has a reputation as a toughie or a softie ?

I would expect the judge to direct the jury as to what the law says, irrespective of anything else.

 

[wfgodot]

from Sammyme's SWNS link above

Mr Lickley also asserted that his crime was sexually motivated – asking Tabak if he ever though about having sex with Jo.

Tabak denied the accusation – claiming he just wanted to stop at kissing.

Oh please. Whatever.

 

[Cherwell]

If he's convicted of manslaughter, will it set a precedent that killing someone because they want to stop them screaming is manslaughter, not murder?

It's the defence used by Ian Huntley, and it didn't get him off.

I would expect the judge to direct the jury as to what the law says, irrespective of anything else.

Fair play, but in asking "whether he has a reputation as a toughie or a softie" one might also be wondering about sentencing?

 

[aneurin]

The presumption of innocence does not, I believe, entail the presumption that a person did not intend his deliberate act to produce its normal results. If it did mean that it would be open to every criminal to assert that he did not actually think of the bad aspect or result of what he was doing at the time and therefore had no mens rea. There is never "hard evidence" of an intention to kill someone except the fact of doing something that is well known to be usually fatal in effect.

Exactly. Intent can only ever be inferred. We do not possess the technology to read people's minds, and neither do we possess the technology to go back in time to read the accused's mind at the relevant time.

 

[Clio]

We do not possess the technology to read people's minds

Cherwell did it earlier today!

 

[aneurin]

Fair play, but in asking "whether he has a reputation as a toughie or a softie" one might also be wondering about sentencing?

Don't know is the answer. Although these days sentencing tends to be by formula, so there is less judicial discretion.