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

[konformation]

So when she did notice him in Waitrose she walked by ignoring him as he nearly pushed the trolley into her, as the cctv shows.
So there is no way in my mind she invited him into her flat and I think the jury and prosecution will be fully aware of this.

the video doesn't show that she completely ignores him at all. Her head is tilted in his direction it would appear, and she could have spoken to him & he to her, we don't have the audio to test that theory though.

She wouldn't have seen him on her way in either, as he was coming up the next aisle so she didn't avoid him, rather she took the long route around the salad island to avoid the people in the way.

 

[otto]

My understanding is that his car was parked in front and he moved it to the back parking area on the evening of the murder. I don't believe he took Joanna into his flat, but rather he took his bike cover from his flat to hers, wrapped her up and put her into his car.

What I don't fully understand is what window she supposedly used when she waved him in. He had no business along the path leading to her flat, but he may have been in the back of the building where her bedroom looks to the back parking lot. Still, it was a dark night and I really doubt anyone would be motioning strangers to come for a visit after 9. VT was pretty much a stranger as he had been working out of the country until shortly before the murder.

It's clear that she came home, was settling in and had opened a cider. He somehow managed to enter her flat. It could be that he decided to knock on her door, she opened the door and he pushed his way in. That would explain why he was so concerned with the door being taken for evidence ... perhaps he put his palms on it to push it open. The scream was heard across the street and across the parking lot, so I always had the impression that the door was open or that she was not inside the flat when she screamed. The windows to the flat were always locked, adding to the unlikelihood for a full scream to be heard in two directions.

If she died in 10 - 20 seconds, she would not have had a bleeding nose. I don't know what injuries she had (totalling more than 40) but I suspect a number of them occurred while she was alive. The fact that VT was so careful - meticulous - in covering his tracks and pointing fingers at his landlord suggests to me that he is equally meticulous in trying to get out of the full consequences of his actions. He tells a good story, but it is the only story he can tell under the circumstances that minimizes his vicious attack.

 

[otto]

I found this on the dailymail.uk website a couple of days ago - shows the parking area in relation to Joanna's flat. It doesn't make much sense that VT would be going by a window.

 

[whiterum]

Happens all the time, evidently, or perhaps just to a certain someone?

And to think he would have just gone shopping in asda, if she hadn't tried to catch his eye through her window and beckoned him in.

And if Jo had only taken one more drink at the Ram, she wouldn't have beckoned him in and got herself strangled.

What a load of old swallocks !!!!

 

[Firefly75]

I've been thinking - I hope the survivors (TM included) are receiving proper support in form of counseling or whatever is needed and available to help them through this, and to somehow go on with their lives afterwards.

 

[Frodo]

DO we know it is Tabak in Waitrose?

 

[kINGFISHER]

the video doesn't show that she completely ignores him at all. Her head is tilted in his direction it would appear, and she could have spoken to him & he to her, we don't have the audio to test that theory though.

She wouldn't have seen him on her way in either, as he was coming up the next aisle so she didn't avoid him, rather she took the long route around the salad island to avoid the people in the way.

No I was wondering at what point he went in there but he must have been in there already . You see him looking up just spotting her . When she is closest to the camera he is following her with his eyes until he makes a point of just missing her with his trolley. As you say though did she ignore him or say hello. Would the cctv give that information.

 

[Cherwell]

DO we know it is Tabak in Waitrose?

No.

Some people were equally convinced that it was him standing next to her in Tesco. What with that and the (authentic) film of him in Asda, one might conclude that he really likes supermarkets. :winko:

 

[Redgoblin]

I found this on the dailymail.uk website a couple of days ago - shows the parking area in relation to Joanna's flat. It doesn't make much sense that VT would be going by a window.

He could have been in his back bedroom and notices a light from her back bedroom cast on the back garden.

IMO he never went around the front of the building, why would he go around the front... his front door is at the back as well.
Not to mention the shorter distance.

 

[konformation]

He could have been in his back bedroom and notices a light from her back bedroom cast on the back garden.

IMO he never went around the front of the building, why would he go around the front... his front door is at the back as well.
Not to mention the shorter distance.

I hadn't realised how 'convenient' the route for body to boot was for VT.

Could VT have been lying in wait for JY's return, - the reason he left Waitrose before her, pouncing as she opened her front door?

staging the rest would be relatively easy for someone as used to calculating the odds as VT. - a real challenge to his boredom.

 

[Cherwell]

Guardian

"What he is being tried for is whether when he killed Joanna Yeates that was planned, premeditated and something he intended to do," Clegg said. "That is the issue you have to focus on."

Is Clegg being a bit naughty there? I thought it was only "intent" that had to be proved. Murder need not be either planned or premeditated.

 

[brownbread]

If I invited a neighbour, who was much bigger than me, into my house, and after a couple of minutes polite chat he grabbed me and tried to kiss me, I think it is fairly likely I would scream.

I do not think the explanation we have heard accounts for the injuries Jo sustained, or the state of the flat, but on terms of how things began it sounds very plausible to me.

 

[bijoux]

Guardian

Is Clegg being a bit naughty there? I thought it was only "intent" that had to be proved. Murder need not be either planned or premeditated.

Naughty or clever? Here's aneurin's explanation:

It's a basic principle of the criminal law that in order to secure a conviction you need proof of both actus reus and mens rea: i.e. you need to demonstrate that the accused (a) committed a criminal act and (b) were aware of doing so. It is not necessary to explain why they did so. It obviously helps (if you're a prosecutor) to be able to give a reason why they did so, if only because it makes it so much easier in such situations to persuade a jury that X meets the requirements of both (a) and (b), but it isn't necessary.

WC has kept the scenario very simple:
It was pure chance they met that night
There was an acknowledgment through the window.
JY opened the front door and let VT in.
He hangs coat and declines drink.

They introduce themselves, explain to each other that their partners are away and "chat like neighbours would."

VT misreads JY's friendliness and tries to draw her near by putting his hand on the small of back as if he were to kiss her.
JY screams.
VT reacts to JY's screams and strangles her but didn't mean to kill her.

So far both the prosecution and defense agree on the following:
Similar times of death.
No signs of forced entry.
VY lied and covered up the crime.
Death could have occurred within 20 seconds.

The defense has tried to raise reasonable doubt that:
Not all JY's injuries were sustained during the attack.
Screams that were heard by witnesses may not have been JY's.

What have I missed?

So tomorrow we'll see if the prosecution can raise a little reasonable doubt of their own in cross examination.

 

[brownbread]

Guardian

Is Clegg being a bit naughty there? I thought it was only "intent" that had to be proved. Murder need not be either planned or premeditated.

Yes that is sneaky. What they actually need to consider is more like what the prosecution have said - that he had the opportunity to stop, but he chose to continue, when the consequences of doing so should have been apparent.

Some people are suggesting this was a planned attack - that he was laying in wait. I can't see that being the case: if it were planned, then presumably the plan was a sexual attack or to kill. If he had planned a sexual attack, why no evidence of sexual assault? If he had planned to kill, why was his behaviour after the event so haphazard?

I wonder if the prosecution will question the basic scenario that it was a spurned advance, or will they focus on calling into question his account of exactly how she died (eg suggesting the was more violence involved)?

 

[whiterum]

I think it's about timing

Lehman's heard scream-scream thud at IIRC 20:49. That's probably not 10 minutes after she got home.

Explains the jury timing the walk from the Hophouse pub

Tragically, Joanna didn't stay for a last drink and went home, arriving around 8.30pm. "Joanna went into her flat. She took off her coat, she took off her green fleece that she was wearing under her coat and put it on a chair, she took off her boots and she went into the kitchen".

She passed the Hophouse at 8:44 so how could she have arrived home at
at 8:30.

 

[Clio]

She passed the Hophouse at 8:44 so how could she have arrived home at
at 8:30.

Quite. I was surprised that the defence suggested that she arrived home so early. I expected the timings to be challenged but thought that the defence might claim a later arrival so that the 8:30pm scream heard by Mr Walker in Percival Court and the screams heard by the Lehmens between 8:45pm and 9:00pm could not have come from JY.

But it seems that's not what they are going to say

Sky reported that the last frame of the CCTV from Tesco was timed at 8:33pm.

All very puzzling

 

[Cadfael]

Regarding the waitrose CCTV footage, it was not mentioned once by the prosecution during the trial. Unless the defence will use it in their case (only scenario I can think in that case, is they knew each other and were having an affair) then as much as it looks like him I do not think it can be him. This footage would have been analysed by experts so as much as people want to believe its him, unless the courts say so id discount this video entirely. The video also cuts off and so it is not certain if the man walks out or simply to get another item. Unless its proved then all the speculation in the world will not help anything.

As regards to jo inviting him in, why not? I am in no way defending VT but not once yesterday did I read he had implied she had 'let him on'. VT may have taken that as a 'come on' but it does not imply anything about jo leading him on, it purely suggests she was friendly and felt safe in her surroundings. I don't buy the full story at all but I do not think that the basic bones of this story could in fact, to a point be plausible. As for the bleeding nose wasn't this said by a pathologist to have occurred after death when he was disposing the body over the wall? And the blood clot on the wall confirmed this? Does not account for the wrists but I thought the nose bleed had been discussed thoroughly in court and was decided this was how it happened?

 

[otto]

Quite. I was surprised that the defence suggested that she arrived home so early. I expected the timings to be challenged but thought that the defence might claim a later arrival so that the 8:30pm scream heard by Mr Walker in Percival Court and the screams heard by the Lehmens between 8:45pm and 9:00pm could not have come from JY.

But it seems that's not what they are going to say

Sky reported that the last frame of the CCTV from Tesco was timed at 8:33pm.

All very puzzling

The scream in the back - was that at 8:30? Wasn't the guy from behind the building a little vague about time? A scream heard closer to 9 is in the right time frame.

 

[otto]

Regarding the waitrose CCTV footage, it was not mentioned once by the prosecution during the trial. Unless the defence will use it in their case (only scenario I can think in that case, is they knew each other and were having an affair) then as much as it looks like him I do not think it can be him. This footage would have been analysed by experts so as much as people want to believe its him, unless the courts say so id discount this video entirely. The video also cuts off and so it is not certain if the man walks out or simply to get another item. Unless its proved then all the speculation in the world will not help anything.

As regards to jo inviting him in, why not? I am in no way defending VT but not once yesterday did I read he had implied she had 'let him on'. VT may have taken that as a 'come on' but it does not imply anything about jo leading him on, it purely suggests she was friendly and felt safe in her surroundings. I don't buy the full story at all but I do not think that the basic bones of this story could in fact, to a point be plausible. As for the bleeding nose wasn't this said by a pathologist to have occurred after death when he was disposing the body over the wall? And the blood clot on the wall confirmed this? Does not account for the wrists but I thought the nose bleed had been discussed thoroughly in court and was decided this was how it happened?

Was anything other than her nose bleeding? She had over 40 injuries. They couldn't all have happened after she died.

Completely agree about the footage. If they were both seen in footage at the store at the same time, it would have been introduced in court.

 

[Clio]

The scream in the back - was that at 8:30? Wasn't the guy from behind the building a little vague about time? A scream heard closer to 9 is in the right time frame.

I'm only going by what was tweeted by SWNS from court last Thursday

Clifton neighbour Harry Walker tells a jury he heard a scream coming from direction of Jo's flat at around 8.30pm