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

[aneurin]

I don't see what the big deal is. I don't see anyone arguing either, not on the OP's side anyway. All they did was say that, as an architect, VT may have seen buildings as an art. He probably does. Just because he was employed as a people flow analyst doesn't necessarily mean he didn't appreciate the outside of a building too- or any more.. or less so.. than its interior and I haven't seen anyone arguing that point either.

Well neither do I. I was only trying to be helpful by pointing out to the OP that they were in error in describing VT as an architect. I'll leave it at that. We don't want to be descend into bickering after all.

 

[Cherwell]

I think it highly unlikely that CJ will be called. Part of the reason for his arrest were the apparent contradictions between what he told neighbours and what he might have told the police, so counsel would probably not want to rely on the accuracy or clarity of his recollections.

I don't think we know what the reasons for his arrest were. I don't for a moment think it's to do with what he said to the neighbours, because they merely paraphrased what he told them and there is no accurate recording of what he actually said, it's just hearsay and Chinese whispers. If you say the same thing to three different people, then they pass it on to someone else, they'll give three different versions of what you said; it's human nature.

You would think that CJ would be willing to testify against the person who dobbed him in to the police, but who knows. Maybe they're unwilling to risk it.

 

[Sammyme]

I do not think it were odd that they were in the kitchen, especially if as he stated she DID offer him a drink. It seems perfectly plausible to me that if indeed she did invite him in she offered him a drink and he would have followed her into the kitchen.

I think I am in the minority also by saying that I also find it equally plausible that she invited him in. This in no way infers she was flirting with him, she was bored that night, as proved by her texts and wanted company. She would have felt safe in her flat. I am not disputing the idea that he knocked on her door and he was invited in that way, but i do not think that this was planned as he did such a poor job of disposing of the body and also of his Internet searches. As he used the net so much afterwards I think if it were planned he would have used it beforehand to research thoroughly. As a PHD student he would have been used to research and I think had it been planned then her body would never have been found.

Of course this is all speculation, as it pretty much everything in this case. The prosecution did a poor job in my eyes of explaining the events of that night.

Some of those things are plausible, even if I personally am not inclined to believe them, or at least not all of them. However, what the defence offered by way of how he came to be there, to me, was not so plausible. They were intent on saying that she had beckoned him in through the window and by her actions practically diverted him and called him back when he had walked past the flat. That to me is not plausible. I think they went too far with that, in order not to admit that he had gone there and either looked in the window to catch her eye and initiate contact or had rung the doorbell.

Subsequently, he even seemed to contradict it himself and admit that he went there, when the prosecutor asked him if he had initiated the whole thing after finding the cat and bringing it back, to which he responded something along the lines that the cat had not been in his flat and that was not the reason he had gone to the door. He also said in another part of his evidence that he couldn't remember if he had rung the doorbell or she had just opened it.

Where I disagree is with the statement that she was bored and felt safe in her flat and wanted company. She wasn't bored: she had loads of things to do getting ready for Christmas; she was dreading being left on her own without Greg for the weekend. She didn't want company, full stop: she wanted the company of her friends and would have liked to stay with her best friend had it not been for the travel chaos arising from the snow and ice. The implication is that she didn't feel safe. We don't know much more than that. Her friends and family would be able to shed more light on this aspect and whether she would in those circumstances have let in someone whom she didn't know but would have seen a few times coming and going and assumed to be a neighbour. What is the case is that she was vulnerable, being on her own because Greg was away. VT knew that, from the landlord
apparently and took advantage of it. That's not to say that he planned murder but he seems to have been prowling around and even from his own admission, found her attractive and wanted to kiss her, allegedly because he thought she wanted to kiss him and wanted him to kiss her. Now that is something I don't find even plausibe, let alone something I am inclined to believe.

 

[Sammyme]

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.

The prosecutor asked him something like that, though: whether he was someone who observed people. I forget the exact words.

 

[Clio]

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.

Here is the floor plan, and below a view into the kitchen window. We see that there is a door between the kitchen and the dining area (thanks to the person that posted this earlier ... sorry, don't remember who that was).

From what I have read he put his right hand around the small of her back to draw her towards him to kiss her. She screamed and he put his left hand over her mouth, said sorry, withdrew his left hand, she screamed again so he put his left hand back over her mouth and used his right hand to "hold" her throat

From skynewsgatherer
Tabak holds up right hand. He says his other hand was on Joanna's mouth.

From Rupert Evelyn
you're squeezing her throat with your right hand, your dominate hand, you r left hand was over her mouth making it impossible to breath

From the fingernail marks at the back off her neck, it sounds like his right hand was pulling her towards him and his left was pushing against her mouth. I can sort of see how this might prevent her running away and could account for her not having been pushed against a hard surface

A very concocted story IMHO

She had bruising on her wrist, which even according to the defence, happened before death

From Skynewsgatherer
Jury now shown clear mark on Joanna's wrist, which happened in life, according to Dr Cary.

So something happened before the alleged attempted kiss which caused that mark

Pity that GR wasn't asked to confirm she had no marks on her wrist when he last saw her

I can believe that they were in the kitchen. She offered him a drink so that sounds plausible

FWIW there are no steps in the hallway and twas me that sent the picture of the kitchen window

 

[Nausicaa]

...The implication is that she didn't feel safe. ....

That was not the impression I received from her text messages of that evening. My impression is that she was "dreading" loneliness and wanted company. Hence the conclusion that it is not implausible for her to have invited him in. But I agree with you that he appeared to contradict himself under cross-examination on the subject, giving the impression that he had approached her front door spontaneously.

 

[Cherwell]

I can believe that they were in the kitchen. She offered him a drink so that sounds plausible

Me too. Or she said, "Hang on, I just need to switch the oven on", and he followed her in there. (Electric ovens can take a while to heat up and they need to be pretty hot to cook a pizza.)

Pity that GR wasn't asked to confirm she had no marks on her wrist when he last saw her

Yes, I'm really surprised that question wasn't asked - unless of course it was, and it slipped by unreported.

 

[Sammyme]

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.

True, we don't know all that is being said. Still, the prosecutor must have had a reason for saying it.

On other thing I do remember is reading a tweet or newspaper report saying that VT said he had spoken to the landlord that evening and he had talked to him about mildew in the flat.

I would very much like to see the landlord being called in evidence. Would also have liked to hear more from Greg about various aspects.

 

[Clio]

Thanks for that, Clio. So presumably he let the cat out but didn't call it back in again before leaving. So in that case it would still have been out when Joanna got home.

I think so. The cat was obviously locked in the flat over the weekend. VT mentions the cat far too often IMHO. Even the supposedly flirtacious comment which allegedly provoked the whole thing is about the cat

From Jon Kay
He denies he took Jo's cat back to her flat - using it as a pretext to spend time with her.

From Jon Kay
"We both said we were bored with our partners away...We talked about her cat.."

From Rupert Evelyn
she made a flirty comment that the "cat went into places it shouldn't go a bit like me"

As I see it, there are elements of truth mixed in with total fabrication. I think it's highly likely that he used the cat as an excuse to knock on her door. "Hi, sorry to bother you but your cat's been round at my flat again so I've brought it back..." Or something along those lines

 

[Nausicaa]

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?

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.

 

[Robin Hood]

I'm going to stick my head up here over the parapit with a little point that may have been missed.
The comment that VT made (he remembered this oddly enough) about Jo flirting with him -

rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
'she made a flirty comment that the "cat went into places it shouldn't go a bit like me"'
20 Oct

Now originally I mis read this as...

rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
'she made a flirty comment that the "cat went into places it shouldn't go'' a bit like me
20 Oct

I don't think this is far from the truth, it certainly doesn't come over as a pass but to me it could be a little 'telling'
2 scenarios come to me, either VT had been caught somewhere he shouldn't have been by Jo or VT had returned the cat and it was said by VT himself.
Sometimes when we lie we used SOME of the truth but change it to fit in with how we want the story to go.
I'm sorry if this appears hard to follow or off the mark.

 

[Sammyme]

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!

Maybe he ate the pizza and dumped the box. Otherwise, why not just leave both the pizza and the box in the kitchen?

 

[Clio]

Could he claim the gripping marks occured as he pulled her by her wrists at some point after death?.....but I think he said he 'carried' her to her bedroom afterwards..... have to put that one down to a "dunno".

Even the defence pathologist stated the wrist marks occured before death

Skynewsgatherer
Jury now shown clear mark on Joanna's wrist, which happened in life, according to Dr Cary.

Unfortunately, the prosecution didn't establish that she had no such mark prior to the fatal incident

 

[Sammyme]

Could he claim the gripping marks occured as he pulled her by her wrists at some point after death?.....but I think he said he 'carried' her to her bedroom afterwards..... have to put that one down to a "dunno".



The oven could have been on because she was 'pre-heating' it, he must have handled it at some point so had to get rid of it.

No; they occurred while she was alive.

 

[Clio]

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.

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

 

[aneurin]

From what I have read he put his right hand around the small of her back to draw her towards him to kiss her. She screamed and he put his left hand over her mouth, said sorry, withdrew his left hand, she screamed again so he put his left hand back over her mouth and used his right hand to "hold" her throat ...

The enhanced defence statement goes;

"The two were facing each other. He put one arm around her back with his hand in the middle of her back and she screamed. He put the other hand over her mouth which caused the screaming to cease. He removed his hand from her mouth and the screaming continued. He then put his hand around her throat — he believes it was the one that had been behind her back — and held it there for about 20 seconds. He applied no more than moderate force on a scale of one to three. He did not intend death or serious injury. His actions above killed Miss Yeates. The defendant accepts his actions were unlawful."

 

[Clio]

Maybe he ate the pizza and dumped the box. Otherwise, why not just leave both the pizza and the box in the kitchen?

Because it had blood on it perhaps?

The whole issue of how much blood was on her is a really puzzling to me

She had blood on her t-shirt, in her hair, on her fingernails, on the sole and toe of the sock that remained on her foot.

 

[Cadfael]

Maybe he ate the pizza and dumped the box. Otherwise, why not just leave both the pizza and the box in the kitchen?

EXACTLY! This is my point, he must have come into contact with both the box and the pizza IMO otherwise he would have turned the oven off and left! Not like he tidied up the whole flat before he left ( from what we have read). He left her phone there too which suggests to me that the entire thing happened VERY quickly and he got out of there sharpish.

 

[Clio]

The prosecutor asked him something like that, though: whether he was someone who observed people. I forget the exact words.

I think he was asked in cross examination by the prosecution on Thursday

From Rupert Evelyn
because of your job do you watch people ordinarily, members of the public are you interested in that? 'no'

 

[Clio]

I'm going to stick my head up here over the parapit with a little point that may have been missed.
The comment that VT made (he remembered this oddly enough) about Jo flirting with him -

rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
'she made a flirty comment that the "cat went into places it shouldn't go a bit like me"'
20 Oct

Now originally I mis read this as...

rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
'she made a flirty comment that the "cat went into places it shouldn't go'' a bit like me
20 Oct

I don't think this is far from the truth, it certainly doesn't come over as a pass but to me it could be a little 'telling'
2 scenarios come to me, either VT had been caught somewhere he shouldn't have been by Jo or VT had returned the cat and it was said by VT himself.
Sometimes when we lie we used SOME of the truth but change it to fit in with how we want the story to go.
I'm sorry if this appears hard to follow or off the mark.

I totally agree that there are elements of the truth in VT's story. I don't think he was already in her flat as some have suggested but I think returning the cat as an excuse to make contact has got to be a strong possibility.