Awesome post. :bow:
Can you email that to the judge for use as part of his summing-up. nline:
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.
Intent intent intent. Can anyone point me to one single case where death resulted from accidental manual strangulation (that did not involve erotic asphyxiation)?
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.
Intent intent intent. Can anyone point me to one single case where death resulted from accidental manual strangulation (that did not involve erotic asphyxiation)?
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]
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."
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 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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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!
Fibres from the sock would surely have been found in her mouth ?
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.
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.