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

[veggiefan]

Don't know his source - do the media get any kind of advance warning that a judge is near to accepting a majority.

I wouldn't have thought that was very proper. Perhaps one of the court ushers muttered something like "this beak ain't keen on majority verdicts - he'll make them keep going if he can".

But I really don't know!

 

[veggiefan]

Thanks for that. I'd just write bolded in brackets.

Shouldn't it be "emboldened"? Perhaps "bolded" is an Americanism, though.

 

[Sammyme]

Only just seen Clio's question about the 10.13pm timing - thanks for answering Luna - thought I was going to have to search for hours!

Someone earlier today was talking about him driving and being seen on CCTV at 10 15 pm. They didn't say where that was, though or which CCTV cameras.

 

[Nausicaa]

It's interesting to read about all the theories about how VT could have been in Joanna's flat prior to her arrival at home, but the problem with these scenarios is that no evidence was presented in court to support the theory - not from the prosecution, not from the defence. The beauty of the theory is that it provides a neat package for explaining the reason behind the assault: he was prowling, got caught, attacked her, panicked, hid her body. This theory also seems to completely support the manslaughter charge. That is, it suggests that he was in the apartment for unknown reasons, was surprised by her when she arrived at home and the murder was spontaneous.

I don't think this murder falls into a neat package like that. I think there was something wrong with VT's head that night. My gut feeling is that he was in a rage for some reason, that he went to her door and attacked her. I keep coming back to Joran v.d. Sloot, whom I believe went into spontaneous, violent rages; attacked women and was then quite instantly again calm. That said, I think that VT has very cleverly wrapped his testimony around known facts in order to explain the evidence and that he has made a good argument for manslaughter. I see one of the main weaknesses in his defence being that he provided a new explanation during testimony - making it very obvious that he looked at the facts and concocted a story.

Thanks for reminding us how gratuitous and improbable the lurking in the flat theory is Otto. But I'm still failing to understand why so many of us are reluctant to accept that the motive was essentially sexual.

Most of us, I think, accept that although he is a barefaced liar his story does in fact contain some elements of truth. Our mole in the courtroom who heard things she can't disclose while the jury were out was strengthened in this view by what she heard.

So let's remember :

1. Young man on his own kills pretty girl on her own - there is already a 99% chance the motive is sex.

2. Immediately afterwards, when his web searches were a complete give-away, he started looking up information about sex crimes.

3. He voluntarily states that he made a pass at her.

4. He voluntarily states that he wanted to kiss her on the lips.

5. He voluntarily states that he placed a hand uninvited on her lower back.

6. He alleges that she made a flirtatious remark. Some have conjectured, quite credibly I think, that such a remark might more probably have been made by him.

7. His refusal to admit in words that his motive was sexual is directly contrary to 3, 4 and 5 above and can be dismissed as an incoherent denial of what is already conceded.

Once we recognise that the motive was sexual most known details fit in without difficulty.

We still don't know whether he rang the doorbell on a pretext or whether she spontaneously invited him in, but either is more probable than the idea that he was lying in wait for her. She had time to do a few things in the house before he arrived, but not much.

It seems unlikely that he went round intending to rape her but not kill her as she would have recognised him. It seems unlikely that he intended to kill her to use her for sexual purposes once dead as there is very little sign that he did so.

The best fit for me is that the pass story and the misreading of the situation is correct in rough outline. But, probably imitating someone in a book or a film, he went in much harder than he said and tried to force himself on her. He convinced himself, like Mr Collins in Pride and Prejudice that when women say no they mean yes. His pass developed rapidly into a sexual assault which caused her to resist and scream. Terrified of the consequences he seized her by the throat to shut her up (as he stated) but knowing full well that he had to shut her up for good by death, to stop her from ever telling the story, not merely calm down an unreasonable bout of hysteria.

 

[otto]

Thanks for reminding us how gratuitous and improbable the lurking in the flat theory is Otto. But I'm still failing to understand why so many of us are reluctant to accept that the motive was essentially sexual.

Most of us, I think, accept that although he is a barefaced liar his story does in fact contain some elements of truth. Our mole in the courtroom who heard things she can't disclose while the jury were out was strengthened in this view by what she heard.

So let's remember :

1. Young man on his own kills pretty girl on her own - there is already a 99% chance the motive is sex.

2. Immediately afterwards, when his web searches were a complete give-away, he started looking up information about sex crimes.

3. He voluntarily states that he made a pass at her.

4. He voluntarily states that he wanted to kiss her on the lips.

5. He voluntarily states that he placed a hand uninvited on her lower back.

6. He alleges that she made a flirtatious remark. Some have conjectured, quite credibly I think, that such a remark might more probably have been made by him.

7. His refusal to admit in words that his motive was sexual is directly contrary to 3, 4 and 5 above and can be dismissed as an incoherent denial of what is already conceded.

Once we recognise that the motive was sexual most known details fit in without difficulty.

We still don't know whether he rang the doorbell on a pretext or whether she spontaneously invited him in, but either is more probable than the idea that he was lying in wait for her. She had time to do a few things in the house before he arrived, but not much.

It seems unlikely that he went round intending to rape her but not kill her as she would have recognised him. It seems unlikely that he intended to kill her to use her for sexual purposes once dead as there is very little sign that he did so.

The best fit for me is that the pass story and the misreading of the situation is correct in rough outline. But, probably imitating someone in a book or a film, he went in much harder than he said and tried to force himself on her. He convinced himself, like Mr Collins in Pride and Prejudice that when women say no they mean yes. His pass developed rapidly into a sexual assault which caused her to resist and scream. Terrified of the consequences he seized her by the throat to shut her up (as he stated) but knowing full well that he had to shut her up for good by death, to stop her from ever telling the story, not merely calm down an unreasonable bout of hysteria.

I think it's probably that straight forward. The only question in my mind is how, or why, he managed to get through the entrance. We have the possibilities that the door was opened because he picked up the cat and went to the door or window, he knocked, or that he was invited as he walked by the window. Option three seems highly unlikely. That leaves the possibilities that he used a ruse (cat, Christmas cheer) to get in (implies murder), or he knocked and things took a wrong turn (implies manslaughter). VT seems to be awkward enough (around women) to have misunderstood friendliness as flirting. The remorse he displayed in court speaks to manslaughter. His manipulative, calculating actions after the fact speak to murder.

I think the jury will be looking carefully at his character in trying to understand which verdict is appropriate. He must seem like a bit of an oxymoron to the jury: on the one hand appearing weak, confused by women, remorseful; on the other manipulative, clever, but still naive about women.

Rape motive, without intent to kill, seems unlikely since she was his neighbour and would identify him in minutes. Rape allegations without clear evidence of sexual assault (even though his actions after the murder include research about sexual assault) doesn't stand up in court. It seems to me that the sexual assault angle is supported by actions after Joanna's death, but I seem to recall that the Judge said to focus on what happened before and during, not after, she was suffocated. With the little evidence there is of sexual assault, I would expect that it should be rejected. In my opinion, that moves the verdict closer to manslaughter. His naivity about women could easily translate into him misreading the situation, becoming angry and over-reacting. Since all parties agree that 20 seconds was all that was required for death, it's difficult for me to believe that this is long enough for someone to realize that those 20 seconds could cause death. Over and over again we've heard that strangulation can take 3-4 minutes. Personally, I would never have guessed that 20 seconds could cause suffocation death.

 

[Luna15]

Thanks for reminding us how gratuitous and improbable the lurking in the flat theory is Otto. But I'm still failing to understand why so many of us are reluctant to accept that the motive was essentially sexual.

Most of us, I think, accept that although he is a barefaced liar his story does in fact contain some elements of truth. Our mole in the courtroom who heard things she can't disclose while the jury were out was strengthened in this view by what she heard.

So let's remember :

1. Young man on his own kills pretty girl on her own - there is already a 99% chance the motive is sex.

2. Immediately afterwards, when his web searches were a complete give-away, he started looking up information about sex crimes.

3. He voluntarily states that he made a pass at her.

4. He voluntarily states that he wanted to kiss her on the lips.

5. He voluntarily states that he placed a hand uninvited on her lower back.

6. He alleges that she made a flirtatious remark. Some have conjectured, quite credibly I think, that such a remark might more probably have been made by him.

7. His refusal to admit in words that his motive was sexual is directly contrary to 3, 4 and 5 above and can be dismissed as an incoherent denial of what is already conceded.

Once we recognise that the motive was sexual most known details fit in without difficulty.

We still don't know whether he rang the doorbell on a pretext or whether she spontaneously invited him in, but either is more probable than the idea that he was lying in wait for her. She had time to do a few things in the house before he arrived, but not much.

It seems unlikely that he went round intending to rape her but not kill her as she would have recognised him. It seems unlikely that he intended to kill her to use her for sexual purposes once dead as there is very little sign that he did so.

The best fit for me is that the pass story and the misreading of the situation is correct in rough outline. But, probably imitating someone in a book or a film, he went in much harder than he said and tried to force himself on her. He convinced himself, like Mr Collins in Pride and Prejudice that when women say no they mean yes. His pass developed rapidly into a sexual assault which caused her to resist and scream. Terrified of the consequences he seized her by the throat to shut her up (as he stated) but knowing full well that he had to shut her up for good by death, to stop her from ever telling the story, not merely calm down an unreasonable bout of hysteria.

I find your language insulting and condescending; who are you to judge other’s theories as “gratuitous and improbable”? I also think it highly irresponsible to refer to one of our forum members as a “mole” - she was a fellow sleuther who went to ‘observe’ a trial and was incredibly responsible in what she did share with us.

 

[Curious Alice]

I don't think this murder falls into a neat package like that. I think there was something wrong with VT's head that night. My gut feeling is that he was in a rage for some reason, that he went to her door and attacked her.

I have never though the rage was directed at Joanna, in that just the sight of her turned him into a madman, but I think he is a man with a lots of hidden psychological issues. Mad at Tanya for going out to enjoy herself without him, jealous of some of her male work colleagues perhaps ? Maybe he had the impression some of the women at work treated him as a bit of a joke ? I am certain there's a lot more to this so-called mild manner of his than we are aware of.

 

[Curious Alice]

I wouldn't have thought that was very proper. Perhaps one of the court ushers muttered something like "this beak ain't keen on majority verdicts - he'll make them keep going if he can".

But I really don't know!

veggie, I almost could hear the Court Usher's West Country accent and see his nod of knowledge and authority then :floorlaugh:

 

[Curious Alice]

But I'm still failing to understand why so many of us are reluctant to accept that the motive was essentially sexual.

Most of us, I think, accept that although he is a barefaced liar his story does in fact contain some elements of truth. Our mole in the courtroom who heard things she can't disclose while the jury were out was strengthened in this view by what she heard.

So let's remember :

1. Young man on his own kills pretty girl on her own - there is already a 99% chance the motive is sex.

2. Immediately afterwards, when his web searches were a complete give-away, he started looking up information about sex crimes.

3. He voluntarily states that he made a pass at her.

4. He voluntarily states that he wanted to kiss her on the lips.

5. He voluntarily states that he placed a hand uninvited on her lower back.

6. He alleges that she made a flirtatious remark. Some have conjectured, quite credibly I think, that such a remark might more probably have been made by him.

7. His refusal to admit in words that his motive was sexual is directly contrary to 3, 4 and 5 above and can be dismissed as an incoherent denial of what is already conceded.

Once we recognise that the motive was sexual most known details fit in without difficulty.

We still don't know whether he rang the doorbell on a pretext or whether she spontaneously invited him in, but either is more probable than the idea that he was lying in wait for her. She had time to do a few things in the house before he arrived, but not much.

It seems unlikely that he went round intending to rape her but not kill her as she would have recognised him. It seems unlikely that he intended to kill her to use her for sexual purposes once dead as there is very little sign that he did so.

The best fit for me is that the pass story and the misreading of the situation is correct in rough outline. But, probably imitating someone in a book or a film, he went in much harder than he said and tried to force himself on her. He convinced himself, like Mr Collins in Pride and Prejudice that when women say no they mean yes. His pass developed rapidly into a sexual assault which caused her to resist and scream. Terrified of the consequences he seized her by the throat to shut her up (as he stated) but knowing full well that he had to shut her up for good by death, to stop her from ever telling the story, not merely calm down an unreasonable bout of hysteria.

Sexually motivated, sexual intent IMO. Great post btw.

 

[veggiefan]

But I'm still failing to understand why so many of us are reluctant to accept that the motive was essentially sexual.

Lack of plausible evidence, I guess.

These days, attempting to kiss a young lady or place a hand behind her back, is probably not what most people would regard as "sexual" in the context of criminal behaviour.

If there was compelling evidence that he had removed her clothing, taken photos of her naked, performed some sort of sexual act with (or over) her, then I would agree that the motive was sexual.

But in the absence of any of that, I can see no more reason why he would want to kill JY than I can see any reason why she would want to scream incessantly if he had made a pass at her.

Unless there is much more that we don't know about, I'm afraid that I am coming to the conclusion that this case is about the interaction of two hyper-nervous people:

VT, apparently very inexperienced with women

JY, apparently half paranoid at the thought of being alone at the age of 25

The two lived either side of the same wall. They were neighbours who had never even bothered to introduce themselves to each other or to invite each other round for a drink and a chat.

My biggest fear is that this is how some (particularly young) people live today. Double lock the doors. Avoid being part of the community in which they have chosen to live. Would JY be alive today, and VT free of jail, if the two couples hadn't simply done what people of my generation do: welcome each other as neighbours, get to know each other, help each other out if the cat needs looking after ... it is now too late to know.

 

[veggiefan]

I have never though the rage was directed at Joanna, in that just the sight of her turned him into a madman, but I think he is a man with a lots of hidden psychological issues. Mad at Tanya for going out to enjoy herself without him, jealous of some of her male work colleagues perhaps ? Maybe he had the impression some of the women at work treated him as a bit of a joke ? I am certain there's a lot more to this so-called mild manner of his than we are aware of.

If there is, as has been suggested, any sort of sexual motive in the crime, I would have loved to have heard from TM about her sexual relationship with VT.

I wonder why she was not called by either side?

 

[Nausicaa]

Lack of plausible evidence, I guess.

These days, attempting to kiss a young lady or place a hand behind her back, is probably not what most people would regard as "sexual" in the context of criminal behaviour.

If there was compelling evidence that he had removed her clothing, taken photos of her naked, performed some sort of sexual act with (or over) her, then I would agree that the motive was sexual.

To clarify, by "sexual" I'm not talking about either a legal definition of that term or what behaviour is socially acceptable. I'm talking about whether the initial urge which created the step between acceptable behaviour and strangulation occurred at a moment when he was experiencing a conscious sensation of arousal in his loins, connected with this pretty young lady. That's all.

 

[Cherwell]

These days, attempting to kiss a young lady or place a hand behind her back, is probably not what most people would regard as "sexual" in the context of criminal behaviour.

I disagree, I would say that nowadays people are far more eager to interpret and denounce such behaviour as "sexual harassment". Twenty-odd years ago it was seen as essentially harmless, if not always welcome, but don't try it today, especially in the workplace!

The two lived either side of the same wall. They were neighbours who had never even bothered to introduce themselves to each other or to invite each other round for a drink and a chat.

My biggest fear is that this is how some (particularly young) people live today. Double lock the doors. Avoid being part of the community in which they have chosen to live. Would JY be alive today, and VT free of jail, if the two couples hadn't simply done what people of my generation do: welcome each other as neighbours, get to know each other, help each other out if the cat needs looking after ... it is now too late to know.

I would be very surprised if Joanna & Greg had not been planning to invite Tanja and Tabak to their forthcoming party. (Many people do this as a courtesy even if they don't really want to be friendly - it is a way of defusing any potential complaints about noise.) And ironically if there is any truth in his story that she flagged him down as he passed, it was probably to issue that invitation.

 

[otto]

I find your language insulting and condescending; who are you to judge other’s theories as “gratuitous and improbable”? I also think it highly irresponsible to refer to one of our forum members as a “mole” - she was a fellow sleuther who went to ‘observe’ a trial and was incredibly responsible in what she did share with us.

There is absolutely no evidence that VT was in the flat prior to Joanna returning home that evening. It's a bit like suggesting that VT had an accomplice. It's introducing speculations that are not founded in the evidence. Furthermore, suggesting that VT was in the flat prior to Joana returning home supports the argument that he was prowling and Joanna's death was a spontaneous reaction: manslaughter. If he was lying in wait, the assault would not have occurred at the entranceway (unusual location of the apron, knocked over furniture), but would have been carefully managed somewhere else in the flat.

Is there something I've missed? Some evidence to suggest that Joanna was attacked away from the entrance? Evidence supporting the theory that VT had access to Joanna's flat? Evidence of forced entry?

 

[Cherwell]

If there is, as has been suggested, any sort of sexual motive in the crime, I would have loved to have heard from TM about her sexual relationship with VT.

I wonder why she was not called by either side?

I am sure that that is the last thing she would be willing to talk about. She has managed to remain private throughout, and no one has managed to get her to utter a word. If she didn't want to testify, as I suspect she doesn't, then she probably made it clear that she might not give all the answers they wanted - in other words, presented herself as a hostile witness. In her place I would feel utterly mortified and I too would keep my head down as far as possible.

 

[otto]

I have never thought the rage was directed at Joanna, in that just the sight of her turned him into a madman, but I think he is a man with a lots of hidden psychological issues. Mad at Tanya for going out to enjoy herself without him, jealous of some of her male work colleagues perhaps ? Maybe he had the impression some of the women at work treated him as a bit of a joke ? I am certain there's a lot more to this so-called mild manner of his than we are aware of.

I agree. I have the impression that VT had an inner angst that was projected onto Joanna. It could be nothing more than he was bothered by the cat and she didn't react the way he wanted, or she reminded him of someone that had rejected him in the past ... it could be many things. I do think that he went into some kind of 0-100 rage, attacked her violently and then became calm again. I suspect his mild-manner is a facade that he presents to the public when it suits him. As the youngest of five children, he most likely was spoiled and indulged. With his size, he probably got away with more than he should have, especially as a teenager.

 

[otto]

I disagree, I would say that nowadays people are far more eager to interpret and denounce such behaviour as "sexual harassment". Twenty-odd years ago it was seen as essentially harmless, if not always welcome, but don't try it today, especially in the workplace!



I would be very surprised if Joanna & Greg had not been planning to invite Tanja and Tabak to their forthcoming party. (Many people do this as a courtesy even if they don't really want to be friendly - it is a way of defusing any potential complaints about noise.) And ironically if there is any truth in his story that she flagged him down as he passed, it was probably to issue that invitation.

That's interesting ... stating that in his defence statement or during testimony would have greatly strengthened his claim that he was invited in.

 

[veggiefan]

To clarify, by "sexual" I'm not talking about either a legal definition of that term or what behaviour is socially acceptable. I'm talking about whether the initial urge which created the step between acceptable behaviour and strangulation occurred at a moment when he was experiencing a conscious sensation of arousal in his loins, connected with this pretty young lady. That's all.

Ah! If he managed that while slipping around on the ice in the side passage on a dark and freezing night in December and in what I guess was a pretty cold flat, I can only say that he is a better man than me!

 

[Curious Alice]

I would be very surprised if Joanna & Greg had not been planning to invite Tanja and Tabak to their forthcoming party. (Many people do this as a courtesy even if they don't really want to be friendly - it is a way of defusing any potential complaints about noise.) And ironically if there is any truth in his story that she flagged him down as he passed, it was probably to issue that invitation.

VT never said in his defence that he was invited to a party. Imagine the scenario, with you as the hostess of the event , opening the door and calling out to the figure that just passed your window "Hey, hi there, sorry I meant to drop a note in and invite you and your other half to a party we are having". He could so easily have said this if he was aware about the party - which he would have been - it was all over the press reports when Jo was still a missing person.

Many of us have the impression,including the judge, that evidence has been offered up to fit the story - so why not make your story more plausible with this detail ?

I'm going to read back the tweets from the trial to get a refresher of what he said and when he said it.

 

[whiterum]

I can see him FROZEN... finding himself trapped in her bedroom as JY comes in and starts to settle in. Maybe he has disturbed too many things that he can nor silently "fix up" with JY now in the next room. Maybe he has been rooting through her lingerie drawer and it's open. How does one explain THAT as neighborhood watch?

He might not have had time before she spotted him to think through an excuse. She sees him, screams...and now he has to stop the screaming. In fairness, he may have been as terrified as she was! And he has to think up this immediate excuse in his second language!

This is not about a "kiss" if Jo lives...but about an intrusion...with such disarray that her parents noticed.

Then there is the earrings strewn about. Was he handling them, handling her underwear...and that accounts for the strange findings?

To me, this pulls a number of the aspects of this story that puzzle us. But this is a story VT can never tell, because a kiss may be understandable, but an intrusion with disarray...much, much harder.

Maybe caught red handed in a situation like this, only he knows the truth



http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/knicker_theft_mayor_wins_prison_sentence_appeal_1_787634