What would swing it for me is the fact that he didn't make any attempt to call an ambulance or get help - even though by his own admission he entertained the possibility that she might still have been alive when he went back in there.
Guilty, m'lud! :gavel:
If I were on the jury in this case, the main thing I'd have a problem with would be the amount of deceit practised by VT since he killed JY. Therefore, I'd have great difficulty believing his sanitised version of events presented in court and the repetitive "I dunno" and "I can't remember" when faced with tricky questions would just add to my suspicion that he DOES know and he CAN remember much more than he's prepared to say.
On balance though, I don't think there's been enough evidence to say for sure that he's guilty of murder rather than manslaughter so I'd have to go for not guilty.
I believe that there was some reason VT could not leave JY alive in that apartment.
In every instance in thus case, although he now decries his behavior, his "conscience" (such as it exists) was repeatedly inadequate in preventing him from doing what was in HIS best interests.
Leaving aside the killing for the moment, one might think this young intelligent young man might immediately call for help if he had accidentally hurt his neighbor and was totally shocked by the circumstances. But his next steps were in his OWN interests, not JY's.
Instead he sets out to make the girl's remains "disappear" and goes to great lengths to set up an alibi to protect himself. Again, it's all about HIM.
Soon, the frantic family appears, making appeals, begging for help, VT is not moved by any of this. He continues his charade. He thinks only of himself.
And then, he decides to help put the punishment for his crime on his innocent landlord. Every single time,at every opportunity, VT chose himself. His ability to observe the suffering he has caused and show no remorse is stunning for a man who killed by accident and is supposedly "normal."
I still believe that the circumstances around the killing of JY contain a secret that he is still loathe to be made known. Let's examine his story...if a clumsy pass is all that happens, VT backs out the door, and later tells his girlfriend,"Good Lord, our neighbor is one hysterical individual. She freaked out over nothing." I think most men would jump back at a scream...not grab the woman, cover her mouth and put hands on her neck. None of this "fits."
There is something that happened that he had to kill to keep Jo from repeating. Maybe something her injuries would prove.
So I arrived in Bristol a few hours ago, I'm going to attempt to sit in on three days of the trial and try to squeeze in visits to Longwood Lane, Canynge Road, etc. I'm interested to see VT's body language (unless there really is nothing beyond "head in hands, staring at floor"!) and I'll report back on anything significant! Wish me luck getting in, getting up at 5:30AM to get ready to queue. x_x
Yes I know that Luna15.
You don't see what I am getting at.
I want to know if VT knew BEFORE he entered the flat.
Who informed him first CJ or JY??????????????????????????????????:banghead:
:banghead:
I think this is more about getting off on asphyia , like the prosection intimated.Attempted rape gone wrong. I think he rang the door bell and attacked her around 9pm as per witness testimony of a woman's screams.
So would I like to know the answers to those questions.I want to know his internet history.
I want to know if anything interesting happened in California.
Have there been unreported or reported incidents of sexual assaults involving him.
Did he stage the flat.
I want to know why he took the pizza. Was the oven really on? Was the pizza in the oven? Only 7-9 mins to heat the pizza. Did it even make it to the oven.
I want to know how he had the means to get in and out of JY's flat to remove her body and later the pizza and sock. Did he have the foresight to unlock the door before he left the first time.
What in heavens name was he doing with a dead body in his flat for 30-45 mins, if we go by NL's timeline.
So many more questions.
I hope we don't have to endure character witnesses tomorrow.
I just checked the video of her flat and can't see any radiators in the hall.
I think he must have known that she was on her own probably from the LL. I believe she was stalked the minute she came out of Waitrose and there must be CCTV coverage to show this. When she arrived home she had time to take off her shoes and coat with him still lurking outside and peeping in the window. At that point I think he took his opportunity either, he had a key or he knocked on the door, then he pounced on her . Can't understand why the possibility of him stalking and the fact that it maybe him on CCTV coverage in the store was not brought up in court. More to this then will ever be allowed to know I suspect. The whole thing stinks to me .
I think this is more about getting off on asphyia , like the prosection intimated.
So would I like to know the answers to those questions.
Any contact Joanna had with the suspect prior to the murder is relevant. If police analyzed the footage and VT was at the grocery store and following her home, that would most definitely go to premeditation. If there has not been any video footage connection, at the shops or during her walk home, between Joanna and the suspect, then it's most likely that there was none.
any contact joanna had with the suspect prior to the murder is relevant. If police analyzed the footage and vt was at the grocery store and following her home, that would most definitely go to premeditation. If there has not been any video footage connection, at the shops or during her walk home, between joanna and the suspect, then it's most likely that there was none.
Er - aren't we supposed to call it "killing" at this point in time
afraid i am not so optomistic as you what you have just said makes me think even more that the whole case is bodering on farce.
The only speculation there has been about Joanna being stalked by VT at the grocery store is on the internet. Presumably, police have looked at the video and determined that it is not relevant. The tape was released because it shows Joanna's movements on her way home. As soon as the tape was released, people started speculating that other people at the grocery store were connected with and stalking the victim. Presumably police have explored and ruled out any connection. Making a connection between men that wander away from their shopping carts and Joanna works towards pre-meditation. VT was seen tossing candies into his mouth in the video after the murder. There is no connection between Joanna and VT prior to the murder at this time, other than perhaps a professional connection - as they were both in the field of architecture.
Does anyone know - if he does get found guilty of murder but appeal - could the police/family/journos release information that had been held back so as not to 'prejudice' his case? or would they have to hold back until after his appeal?
there is a lot of pre trial deliberation as to what will actually be put before a jury, what is admissable etc.