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

[whiterum]

"Tabak pauses and sighs as he describes how "difficult" it was to put her body in his boot. Two attempts taken to do it, he says”

I'll bet the jury are thinking, 'Aw bless, well at least you put in the effort son, you deserve some credit for that.'

Is this guy for real ?

 

[whiterum]

I'm still confused as to whether this was when he left Asda the first time without anything.... or did he just go back to the car and then back in Asda?

Earlier reports said he visited Asda twice. I originally thought he went home, then came back again but not mentioned at the trial.

 

[Sammyme]

Ah, I see! Yes, I remember that case... very sad. And what a pathetic story that was as well, as if anyone would believe that pack of lies. Horrible, horrible man.

Is there some sort of prohibition on mentioning the name? Like having to say "the Scottish play" instead of its name because it is considered unlucky.

 

[goldielox]

I guess he bought the rock salt to clean up any blood on the path along the back of the building before he went to the quarry.

Speaking of blood - how come they found blood in the boot of his car, blood on the LL wall...and no blood in Jo's flat? If her nose started to bleed in the flat then that's where and when it would have been bleeding the most. So why no evidence of that?

With the high tech resources that they use even microspots of blood not evident to the naked eye can be found. Yet nothing. Surely if there was sufficient blood on Jo (and the odd clot) to be found in his boot and smeared on the wall there would have been sufficiantly more blood when she was alive and bleeding and when she was in the flat? If there was blood in the flat (and if there wasn't - why not?) is it really feasible to think VT could have cleaned any traces ...or rather all traces of it up? I personally don't think so. Take away VT's own admission that he was in her flat and the prosecution would be left with absolutely nothing to back up their claims that he was there.

If it wasn't for this mystery I'd be swayed towards thinking he's made a pass at her, she spurned him, he flippped and whacked her one, broke her nose and persisted his lustful attempts again..and that's why and when she screamed and when he then strangled her. With the lack of blood in the flat I'm back to wondering that wherever and when it was that she had her nose broken, it wasn't whilst she was inside her flat.

 

[Redgoblin]

Speaking of blood - how come they found blood in the boot of his car, blood on the LL wall...and no blood in Jo's flat? If her nose started to bleed in the flat then that's where and when it would have been bleeding the most. So why no evidence of that?

With the high tech resources that they use even microspots of blood not evident to the naked eye can be found. Yet nothing. Surely if there was sufficient blood on Jo (and the odd clot) to be found in his boot and smeared on the wall there would have been sufficiantly more blood when she was alive and bleeding and when she was in the flat? If there was blood in the flat (and if there wasn't - why not?) is it really feasible to think VT could have cleaned any traces ...or rather all traces of it up? I personally don't think so. Take away VT's own admission that he was in her flat and the prosecution would be left with absolutely nothing to back up their claims that he was there.

If it wasn't for this mystery I'd be swayed towards thinking he's made a pass at her, she spurned him, he flippped and whacked her one, broke her nose and persisted his lustful attempts again..and that's why and when she screamed and when he then strangled her. With the lack of blood in the flat I'm back to wondering that wherever and when it was that she had her nose broken, it wasn't whilst she was inside her flat.

Sounds very plausible. I had a hunch since the case opened and had made a few posts to that effect, last year. I think it could of been staged to look like she was abducted in her flat but it occurred outside.

If there was enough evidence of it occurring outside, other than the scream heard by party goers across the road, I would imagine it would of been harder for his defence to concoct the story of manslaughter.

The fact that the evidence seems to suggest very little evidence of VT being in her flat, lack of DNA and no mention whatsoever of fingerprints or fibres, suggests very much to me that it could have been planned all along. Perhaps for a very long time.

I think very much that VT likes to play games. I wonder how competitive he is. I really don't believe anything he has said in court. He has told numerous lies again and again, is devious enough to drop CJ in it. You name it, where does one draw the line with the BS, it's like the boy that cried wolf.

The guy is having a laugh if you ask me.

 

[bijoux]

Speaking of blood - how come they found blood in the boot of his car, blood on the LL wall...and no blood in Jo's flat? If her nose started to bleed in the flat then that's where and when it would have been bleeding the most. So why no evidence of that?

Yes, that's the question I asked a few pages back:

No DNA on the knickers in the hall then?
No DNA in VT's flat?
I'm surprised LE couldn't come up with more DNA evidence.
Is there any reason they may have held it back?

goldielox, I'm hoping the prosecution or defense can summarize JY's injuries and list the one's that were indisputably caused by VT, and speaking of DNA was there ever any idea how the unidentified DNA from JY's jeans got there?.

Redgoblin, I am open to her having been assaulted outside but still no DNA there!

How can that be possible?

 

[Cherwell]

Take away VT's own admission that he was in her flat and the prosecution would be left with absolutely nothing to back up their claims that he was there.

But he has admitted it, so there is no need to prove this in court. They must have had plenty of evidence to make him think that pleading not guilty was a lost cause. I'm not going to assume they found no blood, no DNA or whatever in certain places just because I haven't read about it anywhere; I daresay there's stuff that's not been made public.

 

[brownbread]

The fact that the evidence seems to suggest very little evidence of VT being in her flat, lack of DNA and no mention whatsoever of fingerprints or fibres, suggests very much to me that it could have been planned all along. Perhaps for a very long time.

If this were planned, it was a pretty pathetic bit of planning - so many fundamental errors, it just looks like panic.

I assume that VTs web history was checked in the time leading up to the event, rather than just afterwards. And I assume that history showed up nothing incriminating, otherwise we would have heard about it. If this attack were planned, why was he only looking up all these details which would have helPed him plan it after it had already happened?

 

[Cherwell]

Is there some sort of prohibition on mentioning the name? Like having to say "the Scottish play" instead of its name because it is considered unlucky.

No, not as far as I'm concerned. I mentioned Ian Huntley by name in a subsequent post

 

[kemo]

In the US any death that occurs during the commission of another crime is automatically murder; even if no harm was intended. (An example would be when the gun of an armed robber accidentally discharged). This is referred to as “Constructive murder”.

Does the same principle apply in the UK? If so, the real issue would be: did VT's "unsuccessful Pass constitutes an assault? Putting his arm around her and attempting to kiss her would probably not be an "assault" and one would expect a young, sophisticated woman like JY to deal with an "unsuccessful pass" without panicking and screaming. Still, if that is what happened, VT was confronted with an embarrassing situation and nothing more. Most men, when confronted with an "over-reaction" to an "unsuccessful pass" would back off, apologize profusely and simply leave if all else fails.

What I find interesting is the fact that JY's bra was dislodged and VT's DNA was found on her breast. This would suggest something that was far beyond an "unsuccessful pass". That would certainly qualify as an assault. If this is what happened, VT would have been in real trouble.

If the principle of “Constructive murder” does not apply in the UK, he is probably only guilty on Manslaughter charges since there is absolutely no evidence of "planning". All evidence suggests that he was figuring it all out "on the fly".

If “Constructive murder” does apply, I think it all comes down to what exactly occurred during this "unsuccessful pass".

 

[Destroyer]

Geez...The whole day of testimony is over before I even get up! West Coast, USA.

It appears Tanya was his 1st girlfriend. Vera strange. He has no experience of women. He's definitely not a normal man.

He thought Joanna was being flirty. His testimony doesn't make any sense. If she was flirting with him, why would she reject "a kiss"? Why would she scream at being kissed? Women just don't do that - they turn their heads or say "don't do that" - they don't scream!

Two things that definitely arent normal -

1 = A woman screaming if a man attempts to kiss her.

2 = A person gets strangled to death for screaming

As you say above, most men/women not wanting to be kissed by another person probably would react by saying "what the **** do you think your doing ?? - get out of my flat at once...", which leads me to suspect that the truth is he may well of attempted to kiss her before being rejected but then went on to force himself onto her, causing her to panic & scream fearing rape, he did hold her mouth, he did throttle her, he did murder her. He couldnt stop himself, he killed her before he could rape her. The adrenaline took over for those fateful moments, if she had stopped screaming he probably would of raped her - he did say he let go of her mouth, but she kept screaming, this was the point where he could of walked away & that would be that, but it was rape or die in my view. But he couldnt rape her screaming her mouth off, & thats why he wouldnt let go of her throat.

 

[Destroyer]

At the end of the day its whether you believe what VT has told the courtroom or not ?? Has the prosecution done enough to prove he murdered JY ?? Its too easy to accept what VT is coming out with is the truth, it may well be 50%-75% the truth but i dont think he's told the whole truth.

 

[Paulette]

I think a lot of people might find that comment rather insulting. I certainly do - I didn't regularly date women until my late 20s, and I married at the same age that VT has now attained.

Mrs Vf and I have now been happily married for more than 30 years, which is a darn sight longer than those of our contemporaries who married at 17, divorced at 20, and who then got through several more partners before the age of 30.

So sorry. I hadn't considered that aspect. I should rephrase - Tabak probably didn't have any experience of women smiling and being friendly to him for no particular reason. As a woman, I learned early on not to smile and be friendly with "men on the street" or in passing, after receiving unwanted attention from these men.

Every picture of Jo is smiling and friendly. Tabak took her friendliness & twisted it to "flirting" with him. IMO, that's a very immature response - something a much younger man might think.

 

[whiterum]

I think his tale is rehearsed to fit into a certain box and when there are questions asked outside the box that he hasn't expected, he resorts to I dunno, I can't remember, rather than open up a can of worms he can't shut.

If a new neighbour beckoned you in from her window, you would wonder what they wanted maybe to give you a Christmas card or something. You are not going to take off your coat and hang it up in the hall as if you are going to be staying for the evening.

The majority of his story just doesn't ring true at all in my opinion. He's lying to cover up things that would be indicative of murder. He's lying about the timeline for a start.

 

[otto]

I'm sure that VT is telling part of the truth. What we have is a very well educated young man from a good family that appears to be very remorseful for what he did. At some point he made the wrong decision and killed Joanna. The big question, I suppose, is what are the chances that he'll do it again. The prosecutor seems to believe that he is extremely manipulative and calculating, potentially making him a very dangerous man.

I think it's true that he entered Joanna's apartment, attacked her, killed her, put her body in his car, cleaned up, covered his tracks, established an alibi, accused his landlord and did everything he could to get away with murder, while at the same time the fear of being caught was eating him alive.

 

[Destroyer]

I think his tale is rehearsed to fit into a certain box and when there are questions asked outside the box that he hasn't expected, he resorts to I dunno, I can't remember, rather than open up a can of worms he can't shut.

If a new neighbour beckoned you in from her window, you would wonder what they wanted maybe to give you a Christmas card or something. You are not going to take off your coat and hang it up in the hall as if you are going to be staying for the evening.

The majority of his story just doesn't ring true at all in my opinion. He's lying to cover up things that would be indicative of murder. He's lying about the timeline for a start.

I'm sure that VT is telling part of the truth. What we have is a very well educated young man from a good family that appears to be very remorseful for what he did. At some point he made the wrong decision and killed Joanna. The big question, I suppose, is what are the chances that he'll do it again. The prosecutor seems to believe that he is extremely manipulative and calculating, potentially making him a very dangerous man.

I think it's true that he entered Joanna's apartment, attacked her, killed her, put her body in his car, cleaned up, covered his tracks, established an alibi, accused his landlord and did everything he could to get away with murder, while at the same time the fear of being caught was eating him alive.

Its the way he behaved after he killed JY which suggests this man must be charged with murder, if it was uch an accident why not just let go of her throat in the first place, run back into his flat & hide or simply call the police in the first place to explain what a terrible accident had occured ?? It will be interesting to see after this trial if Tabak has any previous convictions i.e sexual assualt etc... obviously we wont find this out until a jury verdict has been made.

 

[otto]

Its the way he behaved after he killed JY which suggests this man must be charged with murder, if it was uch an accident why not just let go of her throat in the first place, run back into his flat & hide or simply call the police in the first place to explain what a terrible accident had occured ?? It will be interesting to see after this trial if Tabak has any previous convictions i.e sexual assualt etc... obviously we wont find this out until a jury verdict has been made.

What he did after the murder is hide the body, clean up evidence, contact his girlfriend to establish that he was in a normal state of mind - shopping/bored, obsessively focus on the murder, implicate his landlord and then kind of emotionally collapse. Manslaughter is based on what happened before the murder. Unless police can prove otherwise, my impression from what we've heard is that this was an accidental death followed by panic and fear. He's a calculating man, but that's what he was trained to do in his job.

 

[FiestyFairy]

I'm sure that VT is telling part of the truth. What we have is a very well educated young man from a good family that appears to be very remorseful for what he did. At some point he made the wrong decision and killed Joanna. The big question, I suppose, is what are the chances that he'll do it again. The prosecutor seems to believe that he is extremely manipulative and calculating, potentially making him a very dangerous man.
.

I don't think the question of his likelihood of doing this again comes in to the equation. He is being tried for what he did this time

He may not have planned it and he may be remorseful but while he was clutching her throat he was doing whatever he had to do to stop her screaming, even if his actions resulted in her death

 

[FiestyFairy]

What he did after the murder is hide the body, clean up evidence, contact his girlfriend to establish that he was in a normal state of mind - shopping/bored, obsessively focus on the murder, implicate his landlord and then kind of emotionally collapse. Manslaughter is based on what happened before the murder. Unless police can prove otherwise, my impression from what we've heard is that this was an accidental death followed by panic and fear. He's a calculating man, but that's what he was trained to do in his job.

My understanding that it's what happened DURING the event that separates murder from manslaughter. Even if the event was 30 seconds long.

 

[aneurin]

My understanding that it's what happened DURING the event that separates murder from manslaughter. Even if the event was 30 seconds long.

It's not what happened that matters, so much as what state of mind the accused had when it happened, and you are entitled to infer what that was based on what happened afterwards.