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

[konformation]

"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." [/I]

If I were QC there I would repeat the question as he didn't ask if the cat was in VT's flat. VT could have returned the cat from outside his flat, and, well, we could guess at his real reason for going to the door!

 

[Sammyme]

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.

Ah. Easy enough at the best of times to make a slip. We all do things like that!

The key thing in this case is something you also said in your last post: he decided. As you put it, he decided to have some contact with her. That is what I have come to think. He decided to place himself in some way into her life on that evening and it appears that he did it because he learned that Greg was going away. It is a bizarre thing to think of and to do but it's what he did. Even his own explanation and defence of what he did is bizarre. He wanted to kiss her and attempted to after meeting her for five or ten minutes! She wanted him to, he thought. As if she would or did! He meant her no harm yet he strangled her! But he didn't call for help which is what someone would do if they hadn't meant any harm and it was a tragic mistake.

 

[bijoux]

I really wonder if there is now very much more left to hear, other than possibly character witnesses for VT (and I doubt that TM will be one of those).

I agree. Why would TM want to testify as a character witness? After what he has done to her, I should imagine she'll have to be in therapy a very long time, and dread the day VT gets released from prison.

Can you Ukers ship him back to the Netherlands for safekeeping once he's sentenced?

 

[Luna15]

I agree. Why would TM want to testify as a character witness? After what he has done to her, I should imagine she'll have to be in therapy a very long time, and dread the day VT gets released from prison.

Can you Ukers ship him back to the Netherlands for safekeeping one he's sentenced?

I have been wondering if he will be allowed to serve his sentance in NL - does anybody know?

 

[Sammyme]

I agree. Why would TM want to testify as a character witness? After what he has done to her, I should imagine she'll have to be in therapy a very long time, and dread the day VT gets released from prison.

Can you Ukers ship him back to the Netherlands for safekeeping once he's sentenced?

I've been thinking they may come to some arrangement with the Dutch to let him serve his time there so that it will be easier for his family to visit him and so on.

 

[Luna15]

I've been thinking they may come to some arrangement with the Dutch to let him serve his time there so that it will be easier for his family to visit him and so on.

and less of a strain on us taxpayers!

 

[otto]

Ah. Easy enough at the best of times to make a slip. We all do things like that!

The key thing in this case is something you also said in your last post: he decided. As you put it, he decided to have some contact with her. That is what I have come to think. He decided to place himself in some way into her life on that evening and it appears that he did it because he learned that Greg was going away. It is a bizarre thing to think of and to do but it's what he did. Even his own explanation and defence of what he did is bizarre. He wanted to kiss her and attempted to after meeting her for five or ten minutes! She wanted him to, he thought. As if she would or did! He meant her no harm yet he strangled her! But he didn't call for help which is what someone would do if they hadn't meant any harm and it was a tragic mistake.

I agree ... I think he knew that GR would be away that weekend, and that may even have played a part in his decision to not attend the Christmas party with his girlfriend. He may have thought that he was so clever at predicting people behavior that he could commit murder and get away with it ... typical sociopath committing murder out of curiosity (see The Vanishing; Dutch version, not US version). I don't think there was any kiss. I think he caught her off guard, attacked her and fully expected that he could get away with it.

 

[Sammyme]

I agree ... I think he knew that GR would be away that weekend, and that may even have played a part in his decision to not attend the Christmas party with his girlfriend. He may have thought that he was so clever at predicting people behavior that he could commit murder and get away with it ... typical sociopath committing murder out of curiosity (see The Vanishing; Dutch version, not US version). I don't think there was any kiss. I think he caught her off guard, attacked her and fully expected that he could get away with it.

I wouldn't go that far but I do think that curiosity may form a big part of his motivation and personality. He was prowling about earlier in the evening. Who does that in the evening in the dark in the depth of winter when they have just got home from work? Allegedly, he had a camera and was supposedly looking at the snow - but took no photographs. I doubt somehow that's what he went out for. When it snows, it is not hard to find something worth photographing: everything is transformed and made new and beautiful.

 

[Paulette]

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?

It was either "I dunno" or "Not me". And then there's "I can't remember".

He does say: "There was no fight," he told the court. "There was no struggle."

He said he "cannot remember" how his arms were scarred, and denied claims there had been a struggle with Miss Yeates as he strangled her.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vincent-tabak-denies-sex-thrills-strangling-2373963.html

 

[otto]

I wouldn't go that far but I do think that curiosity may form a big part of his motivation and personality. He was prowling about earlier in the evening. Who does that in the evening in the dark in the depth of winter when they have just got home from work? Allegedly, he had a camera and was supposedly looking at the snow - but took no photographs. I doubt somehow that's what he went out for. When it snows, it is not hard to find something worth photographing: everything is transformed and made new and beautiful.

Exactly! He was an architect and presumably viewed the city as a piece of art. How could he not find any part of the fresh snow draping the city worth photographing? Again, it's most likely a story to cover the possibility that someone saw him walking around in an odd way at the time of the murder. He's very calculating and has an answer for every possible piece of evidence against him, except the injuries to Joanna. For that, he can't remember anything.

 

[capricorn101]

I have been following this case from the beginning. Over at the FB site and here. I have not had the inclination to post on FB but I would like to share my thoughts here. But if the admin over at FB reads this then she has my permission to paste it there.

I have some real problems understanding why the pros. didn´t pursue these things:

1: why, when two hands are placed on the front of the face and neck, didnt JY back away ?
Unless she was up against a wall she could of `fallen away´ from him and gotten free. Unless he was holding her at the back of the head and at the front of the throat (like the evidence of the finger bruises states) - or, up against a wall. When asked, `where were you in the kitchen? ` he was allowed to answer - `dunno´.

2. When Jo´s body `went limp` - how did she fall ? How did VT lower her to the ground ? did he let her fall like a sack ? or was he still holding her ?
If he was still holding her when she went `limp `then he must of lowered her to the ground - in which case he knew at that point she was in trouble and that he had done something badly wrong. Its a point they have not pursued IMO.

3. The screams. Were they `outdoor`screams or `indoor` screams? This has a huge impact on the case if the witnesses judge them to be `outdoor`screams. According to VT, she screamed inside the flat twice - supposedly with the door shut. So - what did the witnesses hear ? I know I would easily be able to distinguish between outdoor and indoor.

4. What is bothering me the most is the coincidence of VT knowing GR was away for the weekend. Without that knowledge he would have never (being a shy - 1 girlfriend type) gotten into that situation. It smacks of intent and with his girlfriend being away too) it has a `opportunity situation` written all over it.

 

[Cherwell]

I have some real problems understanding why the pros. didn´t pursue these things

Can we be sure they haven't? The case hasn't been very fully reported in the media, that is, not to the extent of transcribing every exchange. Today's Daily Mail account was actually one of the fullest I've seen so far, containing more of the cross-examination than was conveyed via Twitter. Your first point was referred to here:

Mr Lickley said that if there had been no struggle, ‘all she had to do was back away from you unless you had her up against something’.
‘Was it a wall?’ he asked. ‘Was it the floor?’ Tabak replied that it was ‘definitely not’ the latter

Still a long way off being a complete transcript though. As another poster said earlier on, presumably they don't think it sells papers these days.

 

[badhorsie]

:welcome: Capricorn101

 

[otto]

I have been following this case from the beginning. Over at the FB site and here. I have not had the inclination to post on FB but I would like to share my thoughts here. But if the admin over at FB reads this then she has my permission to paste it there.

I have some real problems understanding why the pros. didn´t pursue these things:

1: why, when two hands are placed on the front of the face and neck, didnt JY back away ?
Unless she was up against a wall she could of `fallen away´ from him and gotten free. Unless he was holding her at the back of the head and at the front of the throat (like the evidence of the finger bruises states) - or, up against a wall. When asked, `where were you in the kitchen? ` he was allowed to answer - `dunno´.

I see what you're saying. VT said that he had one arm on Joanna's back to kiss her but when she screamed, he put his other hand across her mouth. He said that when he took his hand off her mouth she screamed again, he put his hand back on her mouth and moved his other arm from her back to her throat. Per his story, 20 seconds later she went limp and presumably fell to the ground. As soon as he had one hand on her mouth and the other on her throat, unless she was backed against a solid surface, she would have run away. Furthermore, who puts one hand across a woman's mouth and another on her throat because she doesn't want to be kissed? She would have stopped screaming as soon as he left the flat ... there was no reason to prevent her from breathing.

I suspect that the attack started in the front hall right at the door. I seem to recall that there may be one or two steps down when entering the flat. I think that Joanna went backward, knocking over the coat rack and she was pinned either against the wall between the bathroom and bedroom doors, or she was pinned on the floor. I really doubt that this happened in the kitchen, where VT claims it happened. I don't see Joanna allowing herself to be cornered in the kitchen with a complete stranger. Even if he was an invited guest, he would not be in the kitchen.

Here is the floor plan, and below a view into the kitchen window. We see that there is a door between the kitchen and the dining area (thanks to the person that posted this earlier ... sorry, don't remember who that was).

 

[otto]

I have been following this case from the beginning. Over at the FB site and here. I have not had the inclination to post on FB but I would like to share my thoughts here. But if the admin over at FB reads this then she has my permission to paste it there.

I have some real problems understanding why the pros. didn´t pursue these things:

1: why, when two hands are placed on the front of the face and neck, didnt JY back away ?
Unless she was up against a wall she could of `fallen away´ from him and gotten free. Unless he was holding her at the back of the head and at the front of the throat (like the evidence of the finger bruises states) - or, up against a wall. When asked, `where were you in the kitchen? ` he was allowed to answer - `dunno´.

2. When Jo´s body `went limp` - how did she fall ? How did VT lower her to the ground ? did he let her fall like a sack ? or was he still holding her ?
If he was still holding her when she went `limp `then he must of lowered her to the ground - in which case he knew at that point she was in trouble and that he had done something badly wrong. Its a point they have not pursued IMO.

3. The screams. Were they `outdoor`screams or `indoor` screams? This has a huge impact on the case if the witnesses judge them to be `outdoor`screams. According to VT, she screamed inside the flat twice - supposedly with the door shut. So - what did the witnesses hear ? I know I would easily be able to distinguish between outdoor and indoor.

4. What is bothering me the most is the coincidence of VT knowing GR was away for the weekend. Without that knowledge he would have never (being a shy - 1 girlfriend type) gotten into that situation. It smacks of intent and with his girlfriend being away too) it has a `opportunity situation` written all over it.

2. Of course ... why didn't he call for help. Here was his neighbour, whom he did not know, and she had completely collapsed because he tried to kiss her. He didn't try to revive her. He did nothing beyond trying to cover up his involvement in her death. What an odd response for an innocent man.

4. Didn't GR cover that one by saying that she told him that she was alone.

 

[konformation]

If only there was a video that showed the events unfolding. I bet it would have little resemblance to VT's testimony!

JY screaming is a big hole in the 'pleasant non-struggle-death' that VY likes to promote.

why would she scream unless in physical danger. And if she was the sort of person who screamed easily, I seriously doubt that she would invite VT in - who was tantamount to a complete stranger!

This trial stinks (from what we've heard) and seems to have worked in the defense's favour as now they are debating how the events presented happened - rather than being able to discredit the holding/JY standing still being passive fabrication.

It must be tortuous for JY's relatives.

The whole notion that JY was suggestive through the window sounds like a crock of ****.

 

[otto]

The absence of blood in the flat is a problematic. VT tells a story to explain everything ... there's something about the back pathway that he had to explain. He said he bought rock salt, presumably because the back path was slippery and he said he found it slippery when he carried Joanna to his flat. He said that he had to put her down because she was heavy. Was he countering evidence found on the back pathway ... evidence like perhaps he attacked her there, she ran back to her flat and he ran after her ... that's when the coat rack was knocked over? Was she running into her bedroom and that's where she was killed? Why did he take her to his flat? Did he really do that and if so why? It would be safer for him to take his bike cover to her flat, wrap her up and put her in the car. He's a people flow person ... it makes no sense that he first took her to his apartment to wrap her in a bike cover and later took her to the car. Did he attack her close to 9, per screams and timeline, but he kept her in his flat and toyed with the body for 30 minutes before he contacted his girlfriend, and then he went to the grocery store? Why is he connecting 9:30 to the murder ... unless he is trying to avoid that 30 minute time period between the murder and the shopping trip.

I think most people would accept that he was in a panic and frantic for those 30 minutes ... but from VT we have an attempt to change the time of death to 30 minutes later. Why does he feel the need to explain or eliminate that 30 minute interval if everything was on the up and up? After an accidental murder, 30 minutes are easily understood as complete panic ... but not for VT ... he simply went back to his flat, texted his girlfriend, put his neighbour in his car and bought beer and crisps ("crisis", per VT ... quite the Freudian slip). Still, there are 30 minutes missing in VT's accounting.

 

[otto]

If only there was a video that showed the events unfolding. I bet it would have little resemblance to VT's testimony!

JY screaming is a big hole in the 'pleasant non-struggle-death' that VY likes to promote.

why would she scream unless in physical danger. And if she was the sort of person who screamed easily, I seriously doubt that she would invite VT in - who was tantamount to a complete stranger!

This trial stinks (from what we've heard) and seems to have worked in the defense's favour as now they are debating how the events presented happened - rather than being able to discredit the holding/JY standing still being passive fabrication.

It must be tortuous for JY's relatives.

The whole notion that JY was suggestive through the window sounds like a crock of ****.

I don't believe anything VT said ... about being in the kitchen, being invited in, placing his coat on the coat rack ... none of it. It's all calculation to manipulate and explain the evidence. There's some evidence he's trying to explain from the back path ... with his story about having to put her on the ground because it was slippery and she was heavy. I think that location is more significant. The first thing he buys after the murder is rock salt to melt the ice or absorb the blood (either is possible).

 

[aneurin]

....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....

It would only be manslaughter if it was accepted that a reasonable man would have not realised that compression of the neck would result in death or serious injury; the fact that VT himself might personally have been acting under some misapprehension of the consequences of his actions is irrelevant.

The other key point here is to understand the crucial importance of the 'no struggle' theory advanced by VT. Since, had JY struggled whilst VT was strangling her, then it would have been blindingly obvious, even to the dimmest of the dim, let alone someone in possession of a PhD, that she was in distress, and that he was physically harming her, and that he should desist immediately.

So, in order to believe that it was manslaughter, you not only have to accept that the 'average joe' doesn't realise that strangling someone is an act highely likely to kill them, but you also have to accept that at no point during the proceedings did JY exhibit any signs of concern at this unfortunate turn of events.

 

[aneurin]

I have been wondering if he will be allowed to serve his sentance in NL - does anybody know?

Under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 it is indeed possible for foreign nationals to be 'sent home' to serve their sentence. Whether it would be deemed appropriate in whatever circumstances VT finds himself in, I do not know.