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

[Luna15]

I wonder of the corner edge of a Pizza box might be sharp enough to cause a graze like that ?

I wonder too.

It was said in court on 10th October that they did not know each other though (widely reported in the press on that date) and AFAIK this hasn't been disputed in court (has it ?)

Many people who live in basement flats are extra cautious about answering the door to strangers. I wouldn't consider myself an overly cautious person, and my door is never opened without a chain across it during the hours of darkness ( but hey, that's me not Jo, we don't know what she did.)

I'm leaning towards the initial attack coming from behind, as she opened the door - not sure why, but I guessed months ago that he would go for a pass gone wrong excuse and I am just not convinced by his explanation.

Could the way her neck was held be consistent with VT's hand grabbing her neck and covering her mouth from behind ?

Dr Carey said there was no evidence of Miss Yeates' clawing at her neck when she was strangled, but simply marks made by the finger nails of her attacker.


http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Vinc...Yeates-kicks/story-13631183-detail/story.html

It doesn't specify here but I'm sure the positioning of the finger nail marks shows that he was facing her.

 

[weeeva]

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.

Got it. A neighbour stated it to a Daily Mail journalist in January and it appeared in the Mail for 22nd January.

It may be worth recalling that the Daily Mail's coverage of the story at that time was outstanding and that they seemed to have a mole inside the police inquiry.

Thanks for that Nausicaa. I remember reading that article. It also says in the same article that neighbours said that TM had not been seen around there for some time, and that she and VT may have separated. That turned out to be wrong.
Why did the defence not question VT about how he came to know that GR was away? I mean it would be in VT's favour, if JY told him after she supposedly invited him in. Maybe it has been dealt with in court, and we just don't know about it yet. It's driving me nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!
:banghead::furious:

 

[Neurotripsy]

Are there any women on this forum that would invite a stranger, albeit one she MIGHT recognise, into their home whilst they were alone, at night ? I know I would not.

Not a chance, especially if I was "dreading" being alone.

I'm wholly convinced she only opened the door to get Bernard back from him. As someone stated earlier, VT mentions it far too often for it to be irrelevant. Either that or he forced his way in when she opened the door for the cat.

 

[Nausicaa]

Yes I was aware of this Nausicaa, and went along with it from day 1, and took it for granted that it would be brought up at the trial, to prove that VT knew that JY was alone that night.
I don't know what it is with me, but I just can't shake off this feeling that no one is taking this matter seriously.
It seems it does not matter whether JY invited VT in or whether he just turned up at her door, because he knew GR was away.
We can't pass judgement on something so serious by listening to and believing gossip and rumour printed in the press and in forums such as this.
I wish I could just let it go. I am like a dog with a bone. I keep going back to it.

You're quite right Weeva: the point has not been legally proved. The prosecution have decided to do without it. But I think most of here have two different points of view simultaneously. In addition to following the trial (which depends on legally established facts and the prudent judgement of the jury), we are also still doing our best to reconstruct the most probable reality of what happened on Joanna's last night - and to do that we are entitled to use any available evidence, evaluated as we think it should be. After all, we are only trying to satisfy our own curiosity. Nothing is going to prove us right or wrong unless VT's amnesia suddenly clears up.

The prosecution (or the defence) could have called CJ, but neither did. We don't know why. At the very least I can guess : a highly articulate, somewhat unpredictable witness, with a grievance against the police and the press and the ability to give different impressions of the same events to different people, would be something of a liability in the witness box. The prosecution's task is not to reconstruct the entire evening's events to our satisfaction but to prove that VT killed her on purpose.

 

[Curious Alice]

The prosecution (or the defence) could have called CJ, but neither did. We don't know why. At the very least I can guess : a highly articulate, somewhat unpredictable witness, with a grievance against the police and the press and the ability to give different impressions of the same events to different people, would be something of a liability in the witness box. The prosecution's task is not to reconstruct the entire evening's events to our satisfaction but to prove that VT killed her on purpose.

If CJ exaggerated information, or misled the police at any point, his credibility as an honest witness can be called into doubt - maybe that is why the defence team have chosen not to call him as a witness. Very important issue IMO, so must be a very important reason why he has been left out of the proceedings. Maybe this incident & conversation was a figment of his imagination & never happened at all ?

 

[2goldfish]

Are there any women on this forum that would invite a stranger, albeit one she MIGHT recognise, into their home whilst they were alone, at night ? I know I would not.

NO! I'd have to know a neighbor WAY better than just "hey, good morning" before the thought would even cross my mind. at night I'd like as not ignore a knock at the door....I read a lot of WS though.

 

[weeeva]

VT admits he spoke to CJ but he didn't AFAIK say that CJ had told him GR was away for the weekend. Unsurprisingly, VT "can't remember"

From Kirsty Gardner
Tabak says he spoke to Christopher Jefferies when he came back from his walk. They may have discussed mildew in his flat.

From Rupert Evelyn
i spoke to Jefferies after my small walk with my camera says Tabak adding he thinks they talked about mildew in the flat

From Skynewsgatherer
#Tabak told police he had seen landlord Chris Jefferies on the night of 17th Dec as he returned from a walk in the snow.

From Rupert Evelyn
asked about meeting Mr Jefferies before killing Jo. VT can't remember whether Jefferies talked about helping Greg start car

I have to say, I disagree that we are only getting a fraction of what is going on in the courtroom. If you read the tweets from more than one reporter, you get a pretty good idea

Yes Clio I am aware that VT admitted to speaking with CJ earlier in the evening. I do not know however, whether or not CJ informed VT about JY being alone on that night.
I have been following 2 tweets, Rupert Evelyn and Skynewsgather.
I am now going to try not to think of this for tonight. I am just getting more and more frustrated.
:banghead::furious:

 

[Luna15]

Thanks for that Nausicaa. I remember reading that article. It also says in the same article that neighbours said that TM had not been seen around there for some time, and that she and VT may have separated. That turned out to be wrong.
Why did the defence not question VT about how he came to know that GR was away? I mean it would be in VT's favour, if JY told him after she supposedly invited him in. Maybe it has been dealt with in court, and we just don't know about it yet. It's driving me nuts!!!!!!!!!!!!
:banghead::furious:

we do...

"She made a comment that Greg was also away and that she (was) also bored at home.

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16092566

 

[Firefly75]

Also, another memory failure:

From Skynewsgatherer
#Tabak told police he had seen landlord Chris Jefferies on the night of 17th Dec as he returned from a walk in the snow.

From Rupert Evelyn
asked about meeting Mr Jefferies before killing Jo. VT can't remember whether Jefferies talked about helping Greg start car

 

[bijoux]

That's definitely from a US page, here's the page regarding murder in English law: Murder in English law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks Neurotripsy!

That page states:

It [murder] is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another either intending to cause death or intending to cause serious injury (originally termed malice aforethought even though it requires neither malice nor premeditation).

I know aneurin has tried to drum it into my head in varying ways and I finally have it! He/she must be very frustrated with me.

Still one thing niggling. Why didn't WC opt for a diminished responsibility defense?

And if VT is convicted of murder, could he ever appeal on the grounds of diminished responsibility assuming a psychiatric evaluation or new information showed he had a pre-existing mental illness at the time of the killing?

 

[Curious Alice]

we do...

"She made a comment that Greg was also away and that she (was) also bored at home.

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16092566

So says VT.......knowledge easily obtained via press reports when Jo was still listed as missing; we know VT was following the case via the internet. Useful information that subsequently suits his account of the events perhaps ?

 

[Sammyme]

Frankly, I don't believe the story about photography at all. Conditions were icy, but there was no significant fresh snow until the early hours of the next morning. In any case, it was totally dark when VT claimed he went out to photograph something.

I believe there was snow. The reverend who met Joanna on her way home was quoted as saying something about it. I remember reading that.

 

[Sammyme]

Thanks for the step info. Early on we were debating whether there were some steps from the door to the hall. Could he have injured her wrists by dragging her into her bedroom, or possibly dragging her on the path after he found it slippery?

Whatever happened, gripping wrists so as to cause marks and injury suggests to me force, coercion, restraint. Was he gripping her wrists in trying to pin her down and overcome her? We may never know but clearly there was something going on that was a great deal more than merely offering to kiss someone who he thought wanted a kiss. It is as baffling as ever to understand what he embarked upon that night and why he killed a young woman. His own story of events doesn't explain it.

 

[Sammyme]

Thanks. I think that is the point that makes me think that Joanna was not in the kitchen when she was attacked. First we have to believe that she beckoned a stranger into her flat when she was alone, then she invited him in ... but not to sit down in the dining area or on the sofa ... but she went into the kitchen, a small room where the door may be closed, and he followed her there. Once inside the kitchen, she and VT supposedly had a 10 minute conversation where she supposedly flirts with him. I'm not buying it for some reason. I suspect everything happened in the hallway and he mentioned the kitchen to cover the possibility that his DNA was in there.

Or to cover some other possibility such as that he tried to drag her into the bedroom?

Also bear in mind that the kitchen window wasn't screened by a blind or curtains so anyone passing outside could have seen in and seen anything that was going on. So would he be aware of that and of the need not to risk the possibility of being seen making any sort of assault or scene in there?

 

[Deckard]

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'.

and there's the rub ...


Before the trial started and we were all pretty much left in the dark for details I was convinced VT would go with the "choke hold" theory of accidental death to match up with his plea of guilty to manslaughter.

It made sense.

Choke holds can kill a victim in 20 seconds. They can be accidental in nature due to their speed and method of application. Also, by definition, the assailant is behind the victim and cannot gauge with accuracy their condition.

What we weren't privy to was the fact that the pathologist found finger nail abrasions on JY's neck that didn't match her own.

The choke hold theory had to be turfed out the window by the defence as a change of position of the assailant during the choking wouldn't look good.

People, by and large, go through life from baby to child to adult interacting with their environment through touch.

Touch through their fingertips not the inside of their forearms. I reiterate, show me a single instance where accidental death occurred in the method VT espoused via handheld manual strangulation.

This is the killer point for me and somewhat overshadows VT's method of entry to JY's flat. It doesn't actually matter if VT broke the door down in a "here's Johnny stylee" or if he was invited into the hallway to be greeted with a row of candles in storm lamps like Posh and Beck's driveway.

The method of entry didn't kill JY. VT's hands did.

 

[Sammyme]

Thanks Neurotripsy!

That page states:

It [murder] is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another either intending to cause death or intending to cause serious injury (originally termed malice aforethought even though it requires neither malice nor premeditation).

I know aneurin has tried to drum it into my head in varying ways and I finally have it! He/she must be very frustrated with me.

Still one thing niggling. Why didn't WC opt for a diminished responsibility defense?
And if VT is convicted of murder, could he ever appeal on the grounds of diminished responsibility assuming a psychiatric evaluation or new information showed he had a pre-existing mental illness at the time of the killing?

I think it's because he wants to get off and believes he can get off because he has convinced himself and expects to convince everybody else that it wasn't his fault - it was really Joanna's for inviting him in, flirting with him, giving him a wrong impression, screaming, refusing to stop screaming and finally going all limp and dying when he meant her no harm and merely wanted to calm her - so he will get a light sentence and be out again after a few years to resume a normal life, including professional life.

He doesn't believe there is anything wrong with him and presumably he doesn't want to saddle himself with some tag of mental illness, disorder or suchlike that might get him put away into special hospital or a mental institution perhaps indefinitely if considered dangerous and maybe untreatable.

 

[Luna15]

Am still thinking that Bernard could have caused the scar and sparked off the whole 'incident'

The nurse found a 6x1 cm scar with scab on his left arm and a bruised toe nail.
by skynewsgatherer via twitter

Tabak was probed about minor arm injuries he was found to have when he was arrested. He said he could not remember how he had got the injuries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oc...?newsfeed=true

<< example of a cat scratch

 

[Clio]

Frankly, I don't believe the story about photography at all. Conditions were icy, but there was no significant fresh snow until the early hours of the next morning. In any case, it was totally dark when VT claimed he went out to photograph something.

I believe there was snow. The reverend who met Joanna on her way home was quoted as saying something about it. I remember reading that.

I also believe the snow didn't fall until the early hours of the 18th. If you look at the CCTV images of JY in the street, there is no snow

The reverend said it was frosty and slippy

From Julia Reid

Prosecution witness father George Henwood was walking his dog in Clifton on dec 17.
Father Henwood describes the frosty evening on 17 dec. At the junction of canynge road he walked on the road and saw a woman
Father Henwood thinks it was #Joannayeates - also walking on the road as it was icy. He said 'it's slippy isn't it'. She said 'yes it is.

 

[Robin Hood]

The CCTV footage shows no snow, IMO VT needed a reason to be out, snooping and possibly perving through windows.

 

[Firefly75]

The CCTV footage shows no snow, IMO VT needed a reason to be out

Agree - I think he "wanted something", i.e. was out with a specific purpose.