GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #16

[Cherwell]

The failure to call for help does it for me.

 

[Sammyme]

There is nothing for the prosecution to prove. The defendant has admitted responsibilty for the homcide, all we have here is an argument about the nature of intent.

You wouldn't think so, listening to this, though.

 

[FiestyFairy]

Strangling someone to death is enough in my book, unless he can show that there was some circumstance that caused his hands to be locked around her neck and mouth to the point that they strangled her to death against his will and he couldn't possibly have known or intended such a consequence.

I absolutely agree. Everything else is just packaging. He admits her unlawful killing by manual strangulation. She has injuries confirmed by both the prosecution and defence forensic witnesses, that she did struggle and would have been in pain. It is clear to me

 

[aneurin]

Strangling someone to death is enough in my book, unless he can show that there was some circumstance that caused his hands to be locked around her neck and mouth to the point that they strangled her to death against his will and he couldn't possibly have known or intended such a consequence.

And that is exactly what the law has to say on the subject as well.

 

[bos]

There is nothing for the prosecution to prove. The defendant has admitted responsibilty for the homcide, all we have here is an argument about the nature of intent.

But the prosecution are suggesting the nature of intent was sexual & there is no evidence to support that.

 

[Luna15]

skynewsgatherer Harriet Tolputt
Clegg asks jury to reject the idea that the screams heard before 9pm were Joanna's as the notion does not fit with evidence.

well have they actually provided EVIDENCE that proves otherwise?

 

[aneurin]

But the prosecution are suggesting the nature of intent was sexual & there is no evidence to support that.

You're confusing intent with motive.

 

[goldielox]

But the prosecution are suggesting the nature of intent was sexual & there is no evidence to support that.

If the prosecution win the media will report the story as per the prosecution's version. A sexual intent (whether true or not) will thus become forever tied to the JY case. Its also a bigger headline grabber- a hint of sex behind it.

A suggested sexual aggravating feature to assist the judge in handing down a bigger sentence doesn't come in wrong either.

 

[bos]

You're confusing intent with motive.

Okay, so the actual conflicting intents are:

Prosecution - to inflict at least GBH

Defence - to stop her screaming

Have I got that right?

 

[bijoux]

Surely everything Clegg is saying is irrelevant anyway?

Yes, but I think WC is giving a very good summation of the defense's case and you have no idea how impressionable some jury members can be.
Wish I could see him and hear his intonation (is his delivery as dramatic as I imagine?) and look forward to how he manages the intent issue.

 

[Curious Alice]

I absolutely agree. Everything else is just packaging. He admits her unlawful killing by manual strangulation. She has injuries confirmed by both the prosecution and defence forensic witnesses, that she did struggle and would have been in pain. It is clear to me

Me too, whilst I doubt that her death was premeditated, the fact remains he strangled her to death and for a fairly substantial period of time, not a matter of a few seconds. You would see someones panic, and fear, and their struggle to breath. I cannot see this as manslaughter, but wouldn't be surprised if that were the verdict. I just know how I would vote as a juror, I do not see any "accident" here at all. How can strangling someone to the point of death be accidental ?

 

[Sammyme]

skynewsgatherer Harriet Tolputt
Clegg asks jury to reject the idea that the screams heard before 9pm were Joanna's as the notion does not fit with evidence.

well have they actually provided EVIDENCE that proves otherwise?

Not as far as I know.

He also said earlier in the speech that the independent evidence supported the later time. What independent evidence is that?

 

[Nausicaa]

Would you agree that if I put my hands around your neck and pressed for one second, it is highly unlikely that you would even pass out, let alone die?

So what if I pressed for five seconds? Would that do it? Or would it need ten seconds? Or perhaps 20 seconds?

These things are not clear cut, and the court can hardly conduct an experiment to find how long it would take.

Do you not see the difficulty?

I do indeed see that it is impossible to fix in advance exactly how long the lethal act of strangulation would take to produce its effect. I am sure that VT saw that too. That is the point.

To take another example, suppose he had put a certain quantity of arsenic in her soup. Would anyone dare to make an argument for the defence out of the fact that the precise fatal dose is impossible to fix in advance ?

You can't offer as a defence against a charge of murder the fact that you purposefully performed a notoriously lethal action but with an element of doubt as to the quantity or duration. People who don't want to kill others don't deliberately do notoriously lethal things to them.

And while we're about it, if you put your hand round my throat for even a half a second I would be immediately wrestling with all my available strength to free and defend myself. I would leave you no possible doubt of my violent objection to the process. I would not wait until I thought you were getting near the mortality threshold before struggling. So would anyone. So did Joanna Yeates as even the defence pathologist was obliged to admit. Your persistence under those circumstances would be the result of a highly deliberate decision.

 

[Luna15]

Not as far as I know.

He also said earlier in the speech that the independent evidence supported the later time. What independent evidence is that?

not at all sure Sammyme - perhaps Hardyman who heard nothing - they are trying to indicated that it would be impossible to hear screams through the thick walls of that building?

 

[bos]

Not as far as I know.

He also said earlier in the speech that the independent evidence supported the later time. What independent evidence is that?

I think he's being a bit naughty (as Lickley was) & talking up the evidence of how digested the stomach contents were at the time of death (possibly).

I agree about the impressionability of juries too. I'm not stupid, yet failed to grasp the differences between motive & intent. Given that there is a substantial proportion of people using the internet who haven't grasped that the victim's name was Joanna, rather than Joanne, it doesn't leave me optimistic.

 

[veggiefan]

Why would she have put the apron on? Unless there was evidence that she was about to start baking as soon as she got home

She had apparently looked up the recipe for her Christmas baking (mince pies, I think) and printed it out on her computer after she returned home (according to the defence - but it was not challenged by the prosecution).

 

[Luna15]

BOTTOM TO TOP

Rupert Evelyn
BC 'i'm going to invite you to accept that all the pathological evidence points to a short, fast moving incident, over in less than 30 secs'

Rupert Evelyn
BC as far as Joanna is concerned all the pathological evidence points to a very short incident.

Rupert Evelyn
BC 'there were no injuries to Vincent Tabak. none that anyone ever saw'

Rupert Evelyn
BC says it happened in 15 seconds or something like that, says it 'can seen very long' in a court like this but it can happen in a 'flash'

Rupert Evelyn
Bill Clegg 'what happened was that the obstruction of Joanna's airwaves caused oxygen starvation that in turn caused heart failure'

Rupert Evelyn
Joanna didn't die of strangulation she died of heart failure says Bill Clegg QC

so if she wasn't being strangled, she wouldn't be starved of oxygen, she wouldn't have suffered heart failure and she wouldn't have died.... dont matter how you sugarcoat it Clegg - she was 'strangled to death'

 

[Cherwell]

I am disappointed with the prosecution as I feel they have concentrated on the wrong aspects. I just hope that, in his summing-up, the judge will clear away all the b/s and focus on the crucial point here.

 

[Curious Alice]

I do indeed see that it is impossible to fix in advance exactly how long the lethal act of strangulation would take to produce its effect. I am sure that VT saw that too. That is the point.

To take another example, suppose he had put a certain quantity of arsenic in her soup. Would anyone dare to make an argument for the defence out of the fact that the precise fatal dose is impossible to fix in advance ?

You can't offer as a defence against a charge of murder the fact that you purposefully performed a notoriously lethal action but with an element of doubt as to the quantity or duration. People who don't want to kill others don't deliberately do notoriously lethal things to them.

And while we're about it, if you put your hand round my throat for even a half a second I would be immediately wrestling with all my available strength to free and defend myself. I would leave you no possible doubt of my violent objection to the process. I would not wait until I thought you were getting near the mortality threshold before struggling. So would anyone. So did Joanna Yeates as even the defence pathologist was obliged to admit. Your persistence under those circumstances would be the result of a highly deliberate decision.

The BIB's are what nails it for me.

 

[Curious Alice]

I am disappointed with the prosecution as I feel they have concentrated on the wrong aspects. I just hope that, in his summing-up, the judge will clear away all the b/s and focus on the crucial point here.

I think they have concentrated on what they are allowed to bring before the court. I agree that it seems a limp prosecution. Maybe we are all too influenced by court room dramas in film and TV.