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

[bijoux]

When the prosecution opened their case, I thought they didn't have too much (that we didn't already know), but the descriptions of JY's injuries were disturbing, as was the defense statement which revealed a 20 sec hands to neck scenario.

But today, the lay chaplain's evidence really put me over the edge. Firstly, he misquoted the accused, then we learn he snitched (ie. turned informer!) because VT was not a religious man.

Have I got my facts straight?

I find that completely incomprehensible and sickening, and I think it did the prosecution's case a lot of harm, especially if there are non religious people on the jury who will read more into his testimony than they need to. And please don't say it doesn't matter because the defense team already knew what VT's plea was going to be, because that has nothing to do with it.

Onwards and upwards.

*still trying to keep an open mind*

 

[notsure]

Stmarysmead, what you say is all true. For that reason, part of me actually feels some human compassion for a human being who has gone so badly wrong. What he did was unforgivable and he will suffer for it. Human suffering is to be pitied, I think.

 

[stmarysmead]

Tabak made a number of choices. He chose to, at least, invade the space of a woman who was a stranger. At the worst, he may have actually assaulted her in her own home. When she screamed in fear, he CHOSE, instead of retreating, to cover her mouth. When that tactic failed, he chose, not to LEAVE, but to watch as he choked the life out of her.

He was in no danger from her...but he decided to exterminate her rather than have the embarrassment of an incident HE PROVOKED be revealed.

He then CHOSE to watch the agony of Jo's family as they searched for their girl. Once again , he showed no mercy. He joked about the investigation to friends. Then, he chose to try to incriminate a man that HE KNEW to be innocent. Would he have seen that man's life sacrificed too?

Tabak made all these choices willingly and deliberately.

Jo had no choice in her fate. Nor did those who love her. Tabak gave them NONE. May he suffer in proportion to the suffering he caused. I have no pity for Tabak's choices or any suffering on his part that results from his deliberate choices.

 

[whiterum]

Talk about earrings strewn across house, sometimes I forget to take them out and I wake up to what feels like a needle stuck in my calf and the other has disappeared never to be found.

They've been in the bed, under the bed, without backs, with backs, stuck in the sole of my shoe, nothing unusual as far as I'm concerned.

 

[bees]

When the prosecution opened their case, I thought they didn't have too much (that we didn't already know), but the descriptions of JY's injuries were disturbing, as was the defense statement which revealed a 20 sec hands to neck scenario.

But today, the lay chaplain's evidence really put me over the edge. Firstly, he misquoted the accused, then we learn he snitched (ie. turned informer!) because VT was not a religious man.

Have I got my facts straight?

I find that completely incomprehensible and sickening, and I think it did the prosecution's case a lot of harm, especially if there are non religious people on the jury who will read more into his testimony than they need to.

Why do you think it harms the prosecution's case? I can't see how it could.

 

[Luna15]

When the prosecution opened their case, I thought they didn't have too much (that we didn't already know), but the descriptions of JY's injuries were disturbing, as was the defense statement which revealed a 20 sec hands to neck scenario.

But today, the lay chaplain's evidence really put me over the edge. Firstly, he misquoted the accused, then we learn he snitched (ie. turned informer!) because VT was not a religious man.

Have I got my facts straight?

I find that completely incomprehensible and sickening, and I think it did the prosecution's case a lot of harm, especially if there are non religious people on the jury who will read more into his testimony than they need to. And please don't say it doesn't matter because the defense team already knew what VT's plea was going to be, because that has nothing to do with it.

Onwards and upwards.

*still trying to keep an open mind*

so much so, I wonder why the heck they called him as a witness?? what was the purpose? to try and say that VT had confessed to 'murder'?

 

[Redgoblin]

He may have had a lot of things, the education the good job and dare I say it, the fairly nice looking bird. But that doesn't mean he was the perfect human being (whatever that is?) that deep down inside he could have harboured deep resentments towards other people, authority, women and even people who are on the surface more happy, ____ fill in your own.

Perhaps he was pushed too much to become something and ended up a nothing, perhaps he was sick of always conforming or doing the right things.

I've always got the impression that his girlfriend TM made him, completed him. I wonder what VT's life was like beforeTM.

I get the impression that this was brewing for a very long time. Perhaps he is a sociopath which has been made to conform.

 

[stmarysmead]

Indeed the Salvation Army minister that visited Tabak did not keep faith with him. Did Tabak keep faith with even the most basic aspects of human behavior in the way he allowed Jo's tortured family to search, worry and hope. How does THAT betrayal rank with the betrayal of his limited "confession?" Perhaps that minister asked himself if he could continue to allow Jo's family to never see justice for their frightened , murdered girl?

I cannot see that anyone who has any empathy for Jo or those who loved her, would feel that Tabak was "mistreated" in any respect. Tabak indulged himself with terrible, monstrous behavior in this entire tragedy. He supposedly was pleading guilty anyway..though still trying to "excuse" himself.

It's amusing that he expected everyone to treat him with impeccable protocol...he, who strangled a young woman, tortured her parents, and then tried to implicate an innocent man!

 

[Luna15]

Indeed the Salvation Army minister that visited Tabak did not keep faith with him. Did Tabak keep faith with even the most basic aspects of human behavior in the way he allowed Jo's tortured family to search, worry and hope. How does THAT betrayal rank with the betrayal of his limited "confession?" Perhaps that minister asked himself if he could continue to allow Jo's family to never see justice for their frightened , murdered girl?

I cannot see that anyone who has any empathy for Jo or those who loved her, would feel that Tabak was "mistreated" in any respect. Tabak indulged himself with terrible, monstrous behavior in this entire tragedy. He supposedly was pleading guilty anyway..though still trying to "excuse" himself.

It's amusing that he expected everyone to treat him with impeccable protocol...he, who strangled a young woman, tortured her parents, and then tried to implicate an innocent man!

he had already told his defence team that he was pleading guilty...

Clegg suggested his client had simply said: "I'm going to plead guilty." He had already told his lawyers that he had killed Yeates, Clegg said, adding that Tabak was "a depressed and distressed man unburdening himself".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/18/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-admission?newsfeed=true

I'm not defending VT, but this Chaplain should have been representing God not playing him.

 

[brownbread]

I must say I was shocked by this issue with the Chaplain breaking confidentiality - to be honest I don't know whether I would expect such a conversation to remain in confidence in the circumstance - but to have one rule for 'people of religion' and one rule for the unreligious seems outrageous!

The most puzzling and troubling aspects of today's evidence to me was the earrings and underwear found in odd locations in the house. Does the fact the underwear was ON the broken pedestal suggest it was only placed there AFTER it was broken? If so, why?

 

[stmarysmead]

In my view, when he took Jo's life, THAT was the supreme act of "playing God."

NOTHING done to him...compares to it. I'm weary of "pity" for the rights of those who willfully destroy the lives of others and show no pity themselves.

 

[stmarysmead]

Are we to believe that Jo came in from the cold, took off her boots, coat and her underwear, pulled her slacks and socks back on... and left it all in the hall? Just dropped her underpants there?

And that a well fitting bra would ride up over just one breast while Tabak was trying to lift her over a wall? I'd love to see the acrobatics of a recreation to make THAT happen.

 

[Luna15]

I must say I was shocked by this issue with the Chaplain breaking confidentiality - to be honest I don't know whether I would expect such a conversation to remain in confidence in the circumstance - but to have one rule for 'people of religion' and one rule for the unreligious seems outrageous!

The most puzzling and troubling aspects of today's evidence to me was the earrings and underwear found in odd locations in the house. Does the fact the underwear was ON the broken pedestal suggest it was only placed there AFTER it was broken? If so, why?

I find that really troubling as well - the fact that the prosecution have emphasised it, suggests to me that they might question VT on it - once he's given his version of events, perhaps they will ask him to account for it - I wonder if then they can produce any evidence of him being in the bedroom...

 

[Redgoblin]

I must say I was shocked by this issue with the Chaplain breaking confidentiality - to be honest I don't know whether I would expect such a conversation to remain in confidence in the circumstance - but to have one rule for 'people of religion' and one rule for the unreligious seems outrageous!

The most puzzling and troubling aspects of today's evidence to me was the earrings and underwear found in odd locations in the house. Does the fact the underwear was ON the broken pedestal suggest it was only placed there AFTER it was broken? If so, why?

I'm not a psychologist, but given what we know of VT as being portrayed in the media. I'd say this:

I don't think his primary motivation was a sexual one, that's not to say I think he might not have done something or thought of it, but I can imagine his motivation being geared towards getting back at people he thinks are beneath him or has made him feel inadequate.

Perhaps TM made some comment to him about GR and JY being a nice couple or some such thing (who knows) ,which could of made him feel jealous or inadequate and to get back at her because he feels a certain way he goes and kills JY. I know it's absurd to most rational human beings, but if he has a personality disorder it would go a long way as to explain his motive, which like the prosecution first mentioned, only VT knows.

The underwear being left and the earrings to me look like he staged it to get back at GR for having the perfect couple relationship. I slept with your GF whos the man now kind of thing... Of course this is just my own take on it. I could be completely wrong?

 

[brownbread]

The underwear being left and the earrings to me look like he staged it to get back at GR for having the perfect couple relationship. I slept with your GF whos the man now kind of thing... Of course this is just my own take on it. I could be completely wrong?

If he were motivated to stage something to show his superiority to GR, then he didn't do a great job of it - a pair of knickers left lying around doesn't give that message to me. If he'd wanted to go down that route, he could have sent a much stronger message - for instance, why remove the body from the scene?

There may be no significance to the items at all - perhaps Jo was moving a few things about when she was interrupted by VT. But if the prosecution doesn't believe them to be significant, why have they been mentioned? Mysterious

 

[Redgoblin]

If he were motivated to stage something to show his superiority to GR, then he didn't do a great job of it - a pair of knickers left lying around doesn't give that message to me. If he'd wanted to go down that route, he could have sent a much stronger message - for instance, why remove the body from the scene?

There may be no significance to the items at all - perhaps Jo was moving a few things about when she was interrupted by VT. But if the prosecution doesn't believe them to be significant, why have they been mentioned? Mysterious

Or he staged it to like an abduction to try throw LE off the scent, like she was taken from her bed hence the earrings left in the bed, the broken pedestal, and the knickers left strewn on the floor.

Either way if it was an accidental killing it doesn't show much remorse for the victim, staging hiding and such.

 

[bijoux]

Why do you think it harms the prosecution's case? I can't see how it could.

This is how I see it:

VT’s self-incriminating words to the lay chaplain , that he gave in what he was told was the strictest of confidence, only show his acceptance of blame and contriteness for the crime he committed.
One for the defense.

The lay chaplain, a religious bigot, who works under the auspices of the prison (albeit in a loose way), betrayed the trust of an accused person (who some of us seem to be forgetting is innocent until proven guilty) for an inexcusable personal reason.
One subtle one for the defense.

 

[Redgoblin]

This is how I see it:

VT’s self-incriminating words to the lay chaplain , that he gave in what he was told was the strictest of confidence, only show his acceptance of blame and contriteness for the crime he committed.
One for the defense.

The lay chaplain, a religious bigot, who works under the auspices of the prison (albeit in a loose way), betrayed the trust of an accused person (who some of us seem to be forgetting is innocent until proven guilty) for an inexcusable personal reason.
One subtle one for the defense.

Sure, but how innocent does one have to be to just quickly go around the neighbours and try it on, then strangle her to death by accident.

20 seconds is rather a long time to make one's mind up about whether to spend the rest of your days in prison.

I think it is a little unfair of the chaplain, if VT told him something in confidence, it's like one rule for the believers and to hell with the rest of you. I don't agree with it it that respect. From a religious stand point I suppose 'they' think non-believers are not worthy of being remorseful. However you could also argue that VT used the chaplain to get it off his chest, as he is not asking a god for forgiveness, which could be seen by the prosecution as another act of VT thinking only for himself.

 

[Paulette]

To call the chaplain a snitch and informer is ludicrous. Wasn't God the first snitch? Didn't God give Cain a mark on the forehead for murdering his brother? The mark identified to all the world he was a murderer.

A non religious person shouldn't/wouldn't expect the same treatment by the clergy. They're non-believers, why would they respect a chaplain? Why would he expect the chaplain to keep a confidence?

 

[bijoux]

The intention of my post was to question the sagacity of the prosecution in putting the lay chaplain on the stand, not to get into a religious debate or anything else.

All I want to know is this:

How did the chaplain's testimony aid the prosecution?