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

[veggiefan]

Personally I have absolutely no problem in accepting that "death or serious harm" was indeed "virtually certain" as a result of VT's "voluntary act" in grasping JY around the throat and applying pressure until she "went limp"

Can we therefore take it that you do not think it is possible for someone merely to pass out (which also causes limpness) under those circumstances?

Thanks for your other points.

 

[aneurin]

If you ignore faulty electrical wiring in your ice-cream shop, and a customer dies through electrocution when opening a fridge door, you will not be charged with murder because there was no intention to kill. There was gross negligence, perhaps recklessness, quite possibly manslaughter, but there was no intent to kill.

Oddly enough, whilst all attention is focused on Court No 1 at the present, a gas boiler fitter by the name of Andrew Hartley made an appearance at Bristol Crown Court to answer a charge of gross negligence manslaughter as a result of the death of Zoe Anderson. It being alleged that it was Mr Hartley's faulty workmanship that led to the death of Miss Anderson from carbon monoxide poisoning.

 

[veggiefan]

a really good summary.... although I had to re-read this bit

Tabak admitted to the police that had eaten pizza for tea that night.

Mr Lickley said: ”Vincent Tabak took it, as he took one of her socks. Why he took it only he can say.

”Was it to eat after the incident?”

VT may be some things, but a sock eater? :crazy:

It is, of course, madness - like all the nonsense about the pizza.

I feel so sorry for JY's family (and VT's, for that matter) in this case.

It's perhaps nobody's fault, but there is very little evidence and both the prosecution and the defence seem to be hanging on to peripheral, and sometimes ridiculous, ideas.

It all places a lot of strain on the jury who, it wouldn't surprise me, may not come up with any clearer idea than those of us who sit on the sidelines and watch.

 

[veggiefan]

Oddly enough, whilst all attention is focused on Court No 1 at the present, a gas boiler fitter by the name of Andrew Hartley made an appearance at Bristol Crown Court to answer a charge of gross negligence manslaughter as a result of the death of Zoe Anderson. It being alleged that it was Mr Hartley's faulty workmanship that led to the death of Miss Anderson from carbon monoxide poisoning.

So he is not being accused of murder?

 

[Luna15]

"The flirting was not mentioned. The fact that he thought Jo Yeates was interested in him – not mentioned. The intent to kiss – not mentioned. The fact that it happened in the kitchen – not mentioned. Moving the body into the bedroom – not mentioned. The killing taking place after the 9.30pm text message – not mentioned.”

I must admit I wasn't aware until now, that all those things were not in VT's defence statement, their absence is quite damning.

stevenmorris20 steven morris
Clegg, for Tabak, describes attack as "a few seconds of madness". QC says it's not surprising Tabak can't give a second by second account

westnewsprod Alex Littlewood
Clegg - says Tabak was not able to remember all the details of the "incident" because it was "a few seconds of madness."

well it appears that his recollections magically re-emerge at the most opportune of moments.

It is, of course, madness - like all the nonsense about the pizza.

I feel so sorry for JY's family (and VT's, for that matter) in this case.

It's perhaps nobody's fault, but there is very little evidence and both the prosecution and the defence seem to be hanging on to peripheral, and sometimes ridiculous, ideas.

It all places a lot of strain on the jury who, it wouldn't surprise me, may not come up with any clearer idea than those of us who sit on the sidelines and watch.

was surprised they wasn't in court today.

 

[aneurin]

Can we therefore take it that you do not think it is possible for someone merely to pass out (which also causes limpness) under those circumstances?

I think that if that was a possibility then William Clegg would have got Dr Nathaniel Carey to say so. The fact that the defence did not choose to explore that particular avenue would suggest to me that the pathology excludes that as a possible outcome.

 

[veggiefan]

I would just add on this topic of diagnosing intent, Veggie, the remark that any theory which enables a killer to evade a murder conviction simply by killing without witnesses and lying about his awareness of the likely effects of his actions is obviously wrong in theory and disastrous in practice.

So, VT runs a red light in his Megane, knocks down and kills a pedestrian (without witnesses), and lies that he thought he had time to get across the junction.

You think he'd be charged with murder?

I don't.

 

[aneurin]

So he is not being accused of murder?

No, he has been charged with manslaughter by gross negligence and also faces two charges of contravening gas safety regulations. He denies the charges, and the trial is expected to start in January.

The facts don't support a charge of murder. Fitting a gas boiler is not in itself an act that normally leads to someone's death.

 

[Luna15]

So, VT runs a red light in his Megane, knocks down and kills a pedestrian (without witnesses), and lies that he thought he had time to get across the junction.

You think he'd be charged with murder?

I don't.

talking of RTA's.... another good summary from SWNS of the defences arguments...

http://swns.com/vincent-tabak-murde...26.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

”Some of you may have had the experience of being involved in the incident of a car crash or knows someone who has.

”It is not unusual for someone in recalling the detail of some traumatic event that takes place in a very short period of time.

”The human brain reacts in different ways to trauma and stress and it would have been easy for Mr Tabak to claim that he could remember how these bruises were caused.”

 

[FiestyFairy]

So, VT runs a red light in his Megane, knocks down and kills a pedestrian (without witnesses), and lies that he thought he had time to get across the junction.

You think he'd be charged with murder?

I don't.

I'm sorry but you are hammering this for nothing.

 

[Cherwell]

If it's anything like my experience of jury service some years ago, there is good reason why the authorities are keen to keep the secrets of the jury room under lock and key.

Far from being the great bastion of British justice, I found myself ensconsed with a charming elderly lady doing her knitting, who said she hadn't understood a word of the case, but reckoned that anyone with bushy eyebrows is likely to be guilty. Then there was the one who fully supported any crime against HMRC, another who said he knew the defendant was guilty because he's read about it in the Daily Mail long before the case started, and the jury foreman who never stopped complaining that - as a self-employed businessman - he was losing a fortune every day, and would we please agree on something, and he'd go along with whatever it was.

To be frank, it was a shambles - Gilbert and Sullivan would have had a field day. At one point I complained to the court usher, who simply said "don't worry, it's always like this - just try to decide on something, or we'll have to put you up in a hotel for the weekend, and there's not the budget to do it".

British justice? Lottery, more like.

That sounds remarkably like the classic episode of Minder in which Arthur Daley was called up for jury service and attempted to turn the rest of the hostile jury around in the style of Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men. Even down to the old lady knitting (played by Dandy Nicholls) who reveals at the end that she actually knows the defendant well .... :floorlaugh:

Sorry, O/T! :blushing:

 

[goldielox]

stevenmorris20 steven morris
Clegg, for Tabak, describes attack as "a few seconds of madness". QC says it's not surprising Tabak can't give a second by second account

westnewsprod Alex Littlewood
Clegg - says Tabak was not able to remember all the details of the "incident" because it was "a few seconds of madness."

well it appears that his recollections magically re-emerge at the most opportune of moments.

I don't buy his loss of memory for one second. If anything and being magnaminous, the one part of it all that he perhaps truly wouldn't be able to remember would be during the time he was strangling her, perhaps that split second when he decided to start to do so, and perhaps a short timeframe immediately afterwards. But he claims to remember all or a lot of of that.

I think you'd have a total blackout of events or, and I suspect is more likely, you'd remember everything and in the minutest of details.

Its 17 years since I found myself embroiled in the criminal proceedings and trial of my ex. I still remember it as though it was yesterday. I know the key dates, could still recall as accurate a timeline and account of what happened if asked, and from the day before he was arrested until the day he was sentenced. Though he too at first claimed total amnesia like VT he later (a lot later) admitted he could remember fine well everything that had happened. I'll add here that at the time of the offence he was drunk as a skunk and a schitzophrenic and even he still remembered.

There are always exceptions of course but I tend to sway towards the majority of people remembering in minute detail about major and/or traumatic events in their life. Add to that the fact that VT has had ten months with nothing more to do than dwell on that night- memories in his particular circumstances do not fade.

 

[aneurin]

talking of RTA's.... another good summary from SWNS of the defences arguments...

http://swns.com/vincent-tabak-murde...26.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

”Some of you may have had the experience of being involved in the incident of a car crash or knows someone who has.

”It is not unusual for someone in recalling the detail of some traumatic event that takes place in a very short period of time.

”The human brain reacts in different ways to trauma and stress and it would have been easy for Mr Tabak to claim that he could remember how these bruises were caused.”

The problem with that defence argument is that VT had no apparent problems in remembering those details that supported his case; it's only in respect of those issues that might have undermined his assertions that he failed to recall anything.

 

[Firefly75]

I am frankly annoyed by people here who claim that because he has a Ph.D he should be clever enough to know these things. I have a Ph.D (in early 13th-century musical notation) and I know for certain that my studies didn't include the length of time it takes to strangle a young woman.

I suppose you're having a dig at me here.

I have objected, on several occasions, to the reply he gave when asked what is likely to happen if person A uses one hand to cover person B's mouth and the other hand to grab person B's neck and squeeze. Here are two sources:

Mr Lickley told Tabak he would have known as a child that holding Miss Yeates's throat would stop her breathing.

Tabak - wearing the same suit and tie as yesterday - replied: ''I didn't learn that as a child.''

http://www.thisishampshire.net/news..._of_killing_Joanna_Yeates_for_sexual_thrills/

'You knew, Vincent Tabak, that if you held your hand around her throat it affects someone's ability to breath. You learned it as a child. If you hold someone around the throat, it hurts and it stops their ability to breathe?'

Tabak replied: 'I cannot say.'

http://ghanapolitics.net/World-News...flirted-with-him-before-he-strangled-her.html

What I meant is not that he should have known how long it takes to strangle someone. What I did say, and what I am saying again, is that the man is not stupid, nor is he mentally subnormal. He's got a PhD. Anyone of average (or above) intelligence would know that if you do what he did, the other person will not be able to breathe, and that can be fatal. Saying he didn't know and he wasn't told that as a child is LAME.

 

[Curious Alice]

So, VT runs a red light in his Megane, knocks down and kills a pedestrian (without witnesses), and lies that he thought he had time to get across the junction.

You think he'd be charged with murder?

I don't.

Sorry, but I do not see the scenarios of strangling someone and running a red light as comparable.

 

[2goldfish]

I really cannot understand why they continued to go with that idea - it's an absolute no-hoper and I think weakens their case, because I'm sure it will leave some of the jury wondering what else they have "bigged up" to try to support a case in which there is very little evidence.



If it's anything like my experience of jury service some years ago, there is good reason why the authorities are keen to keep the secrets of the jury room under lock and key.

Far from being the great bastion of British justice, I found myself ensconsed with a charming elderly lady doing her knitting, who said she hadn't understood a word of the case, but reckoned that anyone with bushy eyebrows is likely to be guilty. Then there was the one who fully supported any crime against HMRC, another who said he knew the defendant was guilty because he's read about it in the Daily Mail long before the case started, and the jury foreman who never stopped complaining that - as a self-employed businessman - he was losing a fortune every day, and would we please agree on something, and he'd go along with whatever it was.

To be frank, it was a shambles - Gilbert and Sullivan would have had a field day. At one point I complained to the court usher, who simply said "don't worry, it's always like this - just try to decide on something, or we'll have to put you up in a hotel for the weekend, and there's not the budget to do it".

British justice? Lottery, more like.

that's horrible, absolutely horrible :sick: I think the truth is, most juries are like that, it's so horrible to consider - why cant people just fairly do the job they were called upon to do?? it could someday be THEM in the dock, and needing a jury to pay attention! you never know.

the whole world better hope they never get called to serve with me - we'll be there til eternity passes til we've gone over the evidence and come to a decision - or hang - whatever need be. I'd be damned if I was gonna just "decide on something"

 

[goldielox]

So, VT runs a red light in his Megane, knocks down and kills a pedestrian (without witnesses), and lies that he thought he had time to get across the junction.

You think he'd be charged with murder?

I don't.

Here's another one to ponder over.

Years ago I managed to emerge from a nightclub and subsequently witness a fatal stabbing just feet away from me (nothing to do with my ex, I was a random bystander re this one...amd I know, I know... I do or did manage to find myself in some awful predicaments on occasion lol)

Anyway. .. two local hardmen start having violent fisticuffs outside a nightclub. One of them was about 5ft 6 and skinny, the other over 6ft and of stocky build. During the course of their fight they crossed the road and the smaller of the two managed to get the larger of the two up against a wall and was winning the fight.

Suddenly there was a glint of steel as the larger one appeared to hit the smaller one in the back/shoulder with a large object. The smaller one slumped to the ground. The large object had actually been a machete sized knife which the larger one had had hidden up his sleeve (he was known to carry a knife around in this way). He admitted he pulled out the knife and stabbed him in defence because the other smaller one had the upper hand in the fight.

He stabbed him once and it was a fatal blow, the knife sliding through his shoulder blades, puncturing a lung and piercing his heart. He died before the ambulance arrived. The killer immediately scarpered after stabbing him.

Manslaughter? Or murder?

 

[Nausicaa]

So, VT runs a red light in his Megane, knocks down and kills a pedestrian (without witnesses), and lies that he thought he had time to get across the junction.

You think he'd be charged with murder?

I don't.

I've no idea if he'd be charged with murder, Veggie, but if he intended to kill the pedestrian, he would be a murderer, wouldn't he ?

There will always be murders that cannot be proved to be so, but I trust there will never be a principle of law establishing in advance that you can murder someone and get off with manslaughter by ensuring that no one can prove to scientific standards that you intended to kill.

 

[Nausicaa]

He admitted he pulled out the knife and stabbed him in defence because the other smaller one had the upper hand in the fight.
He stabbed him once and it was a fatal blow, the knife sliding through his shoulder blades, puncturing a lung and piercing his heart. He died before the ambulance arrived. The killer immediately scarpered after stabbing him.

Manslaughter? Or murder?

Well, let's say I'd rather have to defend him against a murder charge than Vincent Tabak.

 

[bos]

Here's another one to ponder over.

Years ago I managed to emerge from a nightclub and subsequently witness a fatal stabbing just feet away from me (nothing to do with my ex, I was a random bystander re this one...amd I know, I know... I do or did manage to find myself in some awful predicaments on occasion lol)

Anyway. .. two local hardmen start having violent fisticuffs outside a nightclub. One of them was about 5ft 6 and skinny, the other over 6ft and of stocky build. During the course of their fight they crossed the road and the smaller of the two managed to get the larger of the two up against a wall and was winning the fight.

Suddenly there was a glint of steel as the larger one appeared to hit the smaller one in the back/shoulder with a large object. The smaller one slumped to the ground. The large object had actually been a machete sized knife which the larger one had had hidden up his sleeve (he was known to carry a knife around in this way). He admitted he pulled out the knife and stabbed him in defence because the other smaller one had the upper hand in the fight.

He stabbed him once and it was a fatal blow, the knife sliding through his shoulder blades, puncturing a lung and piercing his heart. He died before the ambulance arrived. The killer immediately scarpered after stabbing him.

Manslaughter? Or murder?

Murder I'd say; you know when you stab someone in the chest area from front OR back that there is a very good chance of fatal injury.