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

[Clio]

There was a third post mortem done; I'm not clear why & who instructed it & if the pathologist who conducted it could also be a witness.

You may be thinking of the Dr White that was mentioned.

Dr Delaney started the first post mortem on Chrismas Day and continued on Boxing Day. He did another on 31st December and observed a further one on 17th Jan which was conducted by Dr White

Then there was the post mortem done by Nat Cary at the request of the defence after which he released her body to her parents


From Rupert Evelyn

Examination halted 10pm Christmas day. Resumed 1pm Boxing day

From Julia Reid

Dr Delaney did further examination on 31 Dec and observed another on Jan 17 by Dr White

Pathologist Nat Carey cleared the return of Yeates' remains to her family on 31 January 2011

http://joanna-yeates.gonetoosoon.org/

 

[whiterum]

705. A barrister must not:

(a) rehearse practise or coach a witness in relation to his evidence;
(b) encourage a witness to give evidence which is untruthful or which is not the whole truth;
(c) except with the consent of the representative for the opposing side or of the Court, communicate directly or indirectly about a case with any witness, whether or not the witness is his lay client, once that witness has begun to give evidence until the evidence of that witness has been concluded.

http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk.../partvii_conductofworkbypractisingbarristers/

I think I need glasses, I thought that read bastardsandboards.org.uk

 

[aneurin]

I think I need glasses, I thought that read bastardsandboards.org.uk

Some policemen think it does.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cer-Bob-Campany-compares-lawyers-robbers.html

 

[Luna15]

Some policemen think it does.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cer-Bob-Campany-compares-lawyers-robbers.html

really enlightening first comment below that article - thanks.

 

[Sammyme]

I think I need glasses, I thought that read bastardsandboards.org.uk

Very good! :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

 

[bos]

You may be thinking of the Dr White that was mentioned.

Dr Delaney started the first post mortem on Chrismas Day and continued on Boxing Day. He did another on 31st December and observed a further one on 17th Jan which was conducted by Dr White

Then there was the post mortem done by Nat Cary at the request of the defence after which he released her body to her parents


From Rupert Evelyn




From Julia Reid






http://joanna-yeates.gonetoosoon.org/

So is the examination by Dr White kind of like a double check/second opinion thing for the prosecution does anyone know?

 

[otto]

I, too, find it hard to believe that she just politely let him throttle her without putting up a fight and just went limp in a few seconds. No sir. He probably has a darn good reason for 'not remembering' how her nose got broken and all the rest of it. I just don't buy it.

The more I hear, the more I suspect that he heard her come home and that he decided to have some contact with her. I think that as soon as she opened the door (for the cat, or because he knocked) he forced himself in, grabbed at her and in the struggle the pedestal was broken, the coat rack was knocked over. I think that he attacked her in the hall. She may have gotten away long enough to get to the kitchen, but I suspect the attacked occurred in the hall and then he left her on the floor in the bedroom ... wrist injuries could have occurred while pulling her into the bedroom. The premeditation argument is weak, but it is the only thing VT could use to explain himself.

 

[notsure]

Something obvious about the way VT's mind works: his main tactic is denial. After killing her, he went into survival mode and just denied everything. If he hadn't been arrested, he probably would have carried on his life and never admitted it. Then, after arrest, he still tried to deny it, saying the forensics were flawed. Then when he was forced to admit he did it, he denied murder and went for manslaughter instead. He will deny, deny, deny everything for as long as he can, because he is into self-preservation at all costs. He's living a lie, and possibly even fooling himself. That's very dangerous, for him and for society.

 

[kemo]

From what I can tell, most deaths from manual strangulation are a result of compression to the internal jugular veins which, by blocking the flow of de-oxygenated blood out of the brain, prevent oxygenated blood to flow into the brain from the carotid arteries. This process can result in unconsciousness and just a few seconds and "brain death" due to lack of oxygen can easily occur in less than 20 seconds.

Not all attempts at strangulation would go so smoothly however. Depending on the "technique" of the strangler and the anatomy of the victim, (particularly the muscles of the neck) a perp may be unable to kill his victim using manual strangulation.

In this situation, it seems like VT engaged in a type of "unsuccessful pass" that caused JY to believe she was in real danger. Confronted by a screaming, panic stricken woman who would certainly accuse him of attempted sexual assault, VT put his hands on her face and throat trying to get her to stop screaming before someone came or called the police.

Now, the big question the jury will have to decide is whether:

1) He was only trying to "quiet her down" while he tried to figure out some way to deal with the situation and he had no idea that a compressed jugular vein could cause death in seconds. This would be manslaughter.

2) He realized that he was in serious trouble and he decided there was no way out except to kill her. This would be murder.

3) He panicked. He knew he couldn't just let her scream but he had no grasp of the situation and really wasn't thinking until it became apparent that she was dead.

The jury will make the call

 

[Sammyme]

The more I hear, the more I suspect that he heard her come home and that he decided to have some contact with her. I think that as soon as she opened the door (for the cat, or because he knocked) he forced himself in, grabbed at her and in the struggle the pedestal was broken, the coat rack was knocked over. I think that he attacked her in the hall. She may have gotten away long enough to get to the kitchen, but I suspect the attacked occurred in the hall and then he left her on the floor in the bedroom ... wrist injuries could have occurred while pulling her into the bedroom. The premeditation argument is weak, but it is the only thing VT could use to explain himself.

My thoughts of what must have happened are uncannily similar to yours (I think he did ring at the door). The wrist injuries occurred while she was alive, as far as I know. He said he left her in her bed after she was dead. That started me thinking about the bedroom. I wonder if the struggle in the hall was about him trying to overpower her and drag her into the bedroom and she resisting that.

I don't follow what you mean by your last sentence.

 

[kINGFISHER]

So the chances are he will not be found guilty of murder not enough evidence , but involuntary manslaughter . So it comes down to the Judge to decide his sentence. Lets pray it's a appropriate one. It really is an eye-opener when you look into the system .

Diminished responsibility is not much pleaded these days. It is true that a conviction for manslaughter because of diminished responsibility instead of murder may be seen as less heinous and less stigmatizing than murder. However, it may nonetheless be seen as undignified and stigmatizing. Furthermore, Diminished responsibility may be seen as a serious continuing risk, a dangerous person, unlikely to respond to treatment, and therefore susceptible to life imprisonment or an indefinite sentence for public protection IPP or very unlikely to receive parole.

I agree it is not good to lock up people indefinitely , But we also know there is little or no cure. So some criminals can be incardinated for life while others aren't It seems it may be a case of who is on your side.

 

[wfgodot]

I think I need glasses, I thought that read bastardsandboards.org.uk

When and if you do need glasses, further down the road you may discover progressive lenses (a.k.a. trifocals), which give one three separate opportunities to read things wrong. As I have done!

Just catching up here - can anyone tell me how VT today explained the 43 separate injuries if Joanna didn't put up a struggle?

 

[weeeva]

I haven't read through all the comments yet. So my apologies if this has already been said.
I thought that prosecution would have a cast iron case, to prove premeditated murder. But so far I have not seen it.
What I do know is, that if VT knew that GR was away for the weekend BEFORE he entered Jo's flat, that would prove to me that VT approached JY's as a sexual predator, which he would not have done without the knowledge that JY was alone.
I have not read on any of the tweets that VT was asked if he knew that GR was away BEFORE he entered flat.
This is a vital question in this case, where premeditation is the major factor in a murder v manslaughter case, and yet as far as I can see, neither P or D have brought it up.
Most of us have been assuming for the past ten months that CJ told VT that GR was away. We have only read this in the press and on these forums. Nothing official.
I think the prosecution needs this information in order to seal a murder charge.

 

[weeeva]

If this were planned, it was a pretty pathetic bit of planning - so many fundamental errors, it just looks like panic.

I assume that VTs web history was checked in the time leading up to the event, rather than just afterwards. And I assume that history showed up nothing incriminating, otherwise we would have heard about it. If this attack were planned, why was he only looking up all these details which would have helPed him plan it after it had already happened?

I agree brownbread and I think the prosecution has a week case.

 

[Sammyme]

I haven't read through all the comments yet. So my apologies if this has already been said.
I thought that prosecution would have a cast iron case, to prove premeditated murder. But so far I have not seen it.
What I do know is, that if VT knew that GR was away for the weekend BEFORE he entered Jo's flat, that would prove to me that VT approached JY's as a sexual predator, which he would not have done without the knowledge that JY was alone.
I have not read on any of the tweets that VT was asked if he knew that GR was away BEFORE he entered flat.This is a vital question in this case, where premeditation is the major factor in a murder v manslaughter case, and yet as far as I can see, neither P or D have brought it up.
Most of us have been assuming for the past ten months that CJ told VT that GR was away. We have only read this in the press and on these forums. Nothing official.
I think the prosecution needs this information in order to seal a murder charge.

Today's Independent says that the prosecutor did say that he knew:

Mr Lickley told Tabak he would have known as a child that holding Miss Yeates's throat would stop her breathing.

Tabak added: "It was not my intention to harm her. I just wanted to calm her down and stop her from screaming."

Mr Lickley suggested Tabak knew Miss Yeates's boyfriend was away for the weekend because Mr Jefferies had told him.

"Did you take the cat back to her flat, hence there was a conversation about the cat?" the QC asked.

Tabak replied: "No. The cat was not in my flat and that's not why I went to her door."

 

[bos]

When and if you do need glasses, further down the road you may discover progressive lenses (a.k.a. trifocals), which give one three separate opportunities to read things wrong. As I have done!

Just catching up here - can anyone tell me how VT today explained the 43 separate injuries if Joanna didn't put up a struggle?

He didn't! He said he did not remember any injuries!

skynewsgathererHarriet Tolputt





VT:"I accept responsibility for Joanna's death." Lickley:" you don't accept responsibility for the injuries." VT: "I don't remember those."

11 hours ago

 

[notsure]

When and if you do need glasses, further down the road you may discover progressive lenses (a.k.a. trifocals), which give one three separate opportunities to read things wrong. As I have done!

Just catching up here - can anyone tell me how VT today explained the 43 separate injuries if Joanna didn't put up a struggle?

I think his explanation amounted to "dunno".

 

[otto]

My thoughts of what must have happened are uncannily similar to yours (I think he did ring at the door). The wrist injuries occurred while she was alive, as far as I know. He said he left her in her bed after she was dead. That started me thinking about the bedroom. I wonder if the struggle in the hall was about him trying to overpower her and drag her into the bedroom and she resisting that.

I don't follow what you mean by your last sentence.

Sorry ... my last sentence doesn't make sense. I meant that the manslaughter argument is weak. I think I have always been dyslexic (runs in the family) but mostly was able to work with it. It seems that the older I get, the more I slip up and reverse concepts, words, letters and so on.

 

[Sammyme]

He didn't! He said he did not remember any injuries!

skynewsgathererHarriet Tolputt





VT:"I accept responsibility for Joanna's death." Lickley:" you don't accept responsibility for the injuries." VT: "I don't remember those."

11 hours ago

And in addition to that, he said there wasn't any struggle and there wasn't any fight!

 

[Cherwell]

This is a vital question in this case, where premeditation is the major factor in a murder v manslaughter case, and yet as far as I can see, neither P or D have brought it up.

Sorry, but this is quite wrong. There's no need to prove premeditation, only intent. If you scroll back through the posts, you'll find some clear explanations of this point.

Here's one