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

[Deckard]

Intent intent intent. Can anyone point me to one single case where death resulted from accidental manual strangulation (that did not involve erotic asphyxiation)?

 

[aneurin]

Awesome post. :bow:

Can you email that to the judge for use as part of his summing-up. nline:

I have this terrible feeling that, where I to do so, it would be deemed an act intended to interfere with the course of public justice. Or something like that.

 

[Cadfael]

I agree with both Nausicaa and Aneurin ( I can't figure out how to quote both of your posts in one reply :waitasec: )

Of course you are both right in saying the exact happenings of that night, I guess I am just frustrated as to the evidence that's been presented so far and lack of answers! Grrrrr.

Will any more witnesses be called now? I know that CJ must still be reeling from his treatment by the authorities. but I do think his testimony on what exactly he and VT spoke about ( regarding JY being alone that night) could account for some of the 'peeping tom' theories on here. If VT knew JY was alone then he could quite easily have been having a look through the windows. Whether this was a sexual motive or purely nosey we would never know, but it could possibly help the prosecution in their case? Or can't he take the stand as he was a former suspect? Confused!!!!! :banghead:

 

[Luna15]

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.

Mr Lickley went on to ask 6ft 4in Tabak to account for the many injuries suffered by Miss Yeates, including internal bruises to her ribs and back and damage to her neck muscles.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ates-flirted-strangled-her.html#ixzz1bVIs0VXs

this would suggest to me that she could have been pinned down on her back at some point - most likely in the bedroom where her earing was found, then you would expect a fair amount of her hair to have been found on the carpet ? which the defence I guess would strongly argue would be ]inadmissable[/I] because of course her hair would be in the bedroom. I guess they could also argue that JY was a keen rower and quite a slight girl - could that cause internal bruising to the back and ribs?

@otto - if the 'incident' happened outside surely she would have had something on her feet? he must have had to remove her boots/slippers?

I think he took her back to his flat because he could not be sure that GR might not return (bad weather) or that she'd arranged to have someone come visit - and that's what has me believing that there wasn't much talking between them.

be interested to know your reasoning for him having to get rid of the sock? perhaps he'd had it in her mouth at some point and knew it would contain her saliva?

sincere apologies for being so graphic.

 

[aneurin]

Intent intent intent. Can anyone point me to one single case where death resulted from accidental manual strangulation (that did not involve erotic asphyxiation)?

There's an Irish case that I'm aware of from a few years back - http://www.theirishworld.com/article.asp?SubSection_Id=2&Article_Id=4433

It's not unknown but, generally speaking, accidental strangulation results from (or is claimed to result from) head locks being applied during fights or struggles of some kind. There was the recent Jessie Wright case where the accused claimed he'd accidentally throttled her after applying a head lock. He was nevertheless convicted of murder and got life and 25.

Edit: Oddly enough, the defendant in the Jessie Wright case, one Zakk Sackett, also claimed that he couldn't remember much about what happened (but he did say that he was stoned at the time) and that the reason why he later dumped the body, and lied to police, was that he too was in a 'panic'.

 

[Luna15]

I must admit I don't find it implausible that JY invited VT into the flat; I just don't think it matters that much how or why VT found himself standing face to face with JY. What I think matters is what he then did when he found himself in that position.

And whilst I can understand the frustration that people might feel at the failure of the prosecution to fully explain the events of that night, it should be appreciated that only two people really know what happened. One of them is dead, and the other one apparently 'can't remember' much at all.

do you think that they know an awful lot more but the defence has argued a lot 'inadmissable'?

I have very personal experience of my then 21 year old daughter acting in self defence against her loser of a boyfriend - I read through every single sentance of the case files and witness statements and could not believe what was either deemed 'irrelevant' or 'inadmissable' in court - too long a story to go into but in the end she pleaded guilty to a lesser charge because she was too scared that the jury would call it wrong because they wouldn't be seeing the 'true picture'..... very sore subject.

 

[veggiefan]

Intent intent intent. Can anyone point me to one single case where death resulted from accidental manual strangulation (that did not involve erotic asphyxiation)?

There have been a number of such cases in the USA, almost all involving members of law enforcement agencies, where strangle holds were routinely taught as a means of subduing suspects resisting arrest or to control prisoners who are combative and unmanageable before the advent of other means such as the taser.

13 of the cases that resulted in death are outlined at http://judoinfo.com/chokes5.htm (the 14th was in a case of a student learning a type of Vietnamese judo).

The problem became so great that in 1981, a class action suit was brought against the City of Los Angeles regarding fatalities allegedly caused by the "bar-arm" and carotid artery control holds.

 

[Sammyme]

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.
[cut pictures]

This story about a kiss and holding hands on mouth and throat makes no mention of gripping her arms or wrists. So how come there are gripping marks? That gripping must have happened before the screaming and strangling, even according to VT's story. The supposed would-be kiss, followed by screaming and hands on mouth and throat is a cover.

There were no steps down; there's only a threshold. The Daily Mail had a photograph from inside the hall which showed the level entrance very clearly.

 

[weeeva]

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."

Sammyme, I did read this on one of the tweets, but I am still not happy with it.
Mr. Lickley "suggested" is not proof to me that Mr. Lickley knows for a fact that CJ told VT that GR was away by himself.
As far I can see, it has not been mentioned that CJ made such a statement. Also, we do not know how VT reacted to this "suggestion" made by Mr. Lickley.
Did VT admit that CJ gave him this information?
Or does he deny it?
Only one other person has the answer to this and that is CJ, who has not been called as a witness for the prosecution.
If CJ did not inform VT, it is in his favour, as it means JY must have told him. And if JY told him it casts doubt on a premeditated murder charge.
I suppose we will have to wait until after the trial for the answer to many questions.
We are only getting a fraction of what is going on in the courtroom.

 

[Cadfael]

be interested to know your reasoning for him having to get rid of the sock? perhaps he'd had it in her mouth at some point and knew it would contain her saliva?

sincere apologies for being so graphic.

I read a few days back someone's theory on here ( I cannot remember who so sincere apologies!) that he used to sock to wipe away evidence afterwards, or on his hand as a 'glove'. I thought this was almost as ridiculous as a very early post on this site fom someone claiming the sock was used as a balaclava!!! However the more I think of it the more I think that in fact if the sock came off whilst removing the body, and he picked it up, he probably did use it to wipe down things such as the front door lock etc.

The pizza is the strangest for me.....If he hadn't touched it, why not just turn the oven off and leave the pizza there? He left her bag, coat, boots etc so the pizza in the oven wouldn't have automatically rang alarm bells! Seems very weird he went to the trouble of taking the pizza AND box and dumoed them, if he had no contact with either while in her flat!

 

[Curious Alice]

I agree with both Nausicaa and Aneurin ( I can't figure out how to quote both of your posts in one reply :waitasec: )

Of course you are both right in saying the exact happenings of that night, I guess I am just frustrated as to the evidence that's been presented so far and lack of answers! Grrrrr.

Will any more witnesses be called now? I know that CJ must still be reeling from his treatment by the authorities. but I do think his testimony on what exactly he and VT spoke about ( regarding JY being alone that night) could account for some of the 'peeping tom' theories on here. If VT knew JY was alone then he could quite easily have been having a look through the windows. Whether this was a sexual motive or purely nosey we would never know, but it could possibly help the prosecution in their case? Or can't he take the stand as he was a former suspect? Confused!!!!! :banghead:

Would he be perceived as a hostile witness ? A man with an axe to grind ? His reputation was effectively destroyed as a result of VT implicating him to the police.

 

[Sammyme]

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.

Yes, it is odd how he remembers with such clarity about the path and going back and forth between the flats but not what happened when he was killing Joanna. Everything is designed to provide a story and a cover.

He said the reason he came back and moved her body to his flat was that if he left it in her flat, the neighbours would be suspected.

 

[veggiefan]

I know that CJ must still be reeling from his treatment by the authorities. but I do think his testimony on what exactly he and VT spoke about ( regarding JY being alone that night) could account for some of the 'peeping tom' theories on here. If VT knew JY was alone then he could quite easily have been having a look through the windows. Whether this was a sexual motive or purely nosey we would never know, but it could possibly help the prosecution in their case? Or can't he take the stand as he was a former suspect? Confused!!!!! :banghead:

I think it highly unlikely that CJ will be called. Part of the reason for his arrest were the apparent contradictions between what he told neighbours and what he might have told the police, so counsel would probably not want to rely on the accuracy or clarity of his recollections.

Also, CJ is in the middle of suing Avon and Somerset Police (the investigating authority in this case) for wrongful arrest, which may lead the jury to think that he is not a truly independent witness.

I understand, though, that CJ is likely to be called as a witness by the Leveson Enquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. I expect he will have quite a lot to say to them. :furious:

 

[Curious Alice]

be interested to know your reasoning for him having to get rid of the sock? perhaps he'd had it in her mouth at some point and knew it would contain her saliva?

sincere apologies for being so graphic.

Fibres from the sock would surely have been found in her mouth ?

 

[Curious Alice]

Sammyme, I did read this on one of the tweets, but I am still not happy with it.
Mr. Lickley "suggested" is not proof to me that Mr. Lickley knows for a fact that CJ told VT that GR was away by himself.
As far I can see, it has not been mentioned that CJ made such a statement. Also, we do not know how VT reacted to this "suggestion" made by Mr. Lickley.
Did VT admit that CJ gave him this information?
Or does he deny it?
Only one other person has the answer to this and that is CJ, who has not been called as a witness for the prosecution.
If CJ did not inform VT, it is in his favour, as it means JY must have told him. And if JY told him it casts doubt on a premeditated murder charge.
I suppose we will have to wait until after the trial for the answer to many questions.
We are only getting a fraction of what is going on in the courtroom.

Is it possible that this alleged conversation falls under inadmissable evidence ? I am sure (but don't have time to check out all the old news reports) that some such conversation was reported in the press before VT was charged.

 

[Cadfael]

:maddening: Doh! I forgot he was in the middle of suing them! I blame my pregnancy hormones for forgetting this!

Thanks for clearing that up for me! I was so frustrated he wasn't called! Makes total sense now as to why!

 

[Luna15]

This story about a kiss and holding hands on mouth and throat makes no mention of gripping her arms or wrists. So how come there are gripping marks? That gripping must have happened before the screaming and strangling, even according to VT's story. The supposed would-be kiss, followed by screaming and hands on mouth and throat is a cover.

There were no steps down; there's only a threshold. The Daily Mail had a photograph from inside the hall which showed the level entrance very clearly.

Could he claim the gripping marks occured as he pulled her by her wrists at some point after death?.....but I think he said he 'carried' her to her bedroom afterwards..... have to put that one down to a "dunno".

I read a few days back someone's theory on here ( I cannot remember who so sincere apologies!) that he used to sock to wipe away evidence afterwards, or on his hand as a 'glove'. I thought this was almost as ridiculous as a very early post on this site fom someone claiming the sock was used as a balaclava!!! However the more I think of it the more I think that in fact if the sock came off whilst removing the body, and he picked it up, he probably did use it to wipe down things such as the front door lock etc.

The pizza is the strangest for me.....If he hadn't touched it, why not just turn the oven off and leave the pizza there? He left her bag, coat, boots etc so the pizza in the oven wouldn't have automatically rang alarm bells! Seems very weird he went to the trouble of taking the pizza AND box and dumoed them, if he had no contact with either while in her flat!

The oven could have been on because she was 'pre-heating' it, he must have handled it at some point so had to get rid of it.

 

[Luna15]

Fibres from the sock would surely have been found in her mouth ?

Of course - I didn't think of that!

 

[goldielox]

Well absolutely. I'm quite well aware of the fact that he studied architecture or something very like that, but it remains the case that VT has never worked as either an architect or an architectural engineer.

In one sense I find it quite amusing, as previously we had posters arguing that because VT was employed as a people flow analyst, he must have been obsessed by watching people, and began speculating about peepholes, crawlspaces and the likes. No we have someone arguing almost the exact opposite - that he was fascinated by the externalities of buildings rather than the internalities.

The relevance of either argument quite escapes me as well.

I don't see what the big deal is. I don't see anyone arguing either, not on the OP's side anyway. All they did was say that, as an architect, VT may have seen buildings as an art. He probably does. Just because he was employed as a people flow analyst doesn't necessarily mean he didn't appreciate the outside of a building too- or any more.. or less so.. than its interior and I haven't seen anyone arguing that point either.

 

[Nausicaa]

Mr. Lickley "suggested" is not proof to me that Mr. Lickley knows for a fact that CJ told VT that GR was away by himself.
As far I can see, it has not been mentioned that CJ made such a statement.

It was made public a long time ago that CJ, who is clearly something of a chatterbox, met VT (who was riding his bike) early in the fatal evening and told him the story of how he and others had had to help jump-start Greg's car so that he could get away for the week-end.