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

[whiterum]

My verdict would definitely be guilty. No matter how he got to this point IMO by the time he had finally put his hand around this young womans neck, to squeeze the last breath out of her, face to face in those 20 seconds or so, he saw her distress, he knew what he was doing, he wanted to end her life, there would be no doubt at all in my mind.

 

[FiestyFairy]

No, a "route to verdict" is a series of questions prepared by the judge (usually in consulation with counsel) which tell the jury the questions they need to answer (and the order in which to do so) in order to reach a verdict.

It's something that is normally only done in complex cases, but here I suspect that the judge is concerned that they seem unable to agree on a verdict, and is hoping that this will direct their deliberations.

The tweets I have been reading state the document the jury called route to Verdict. Not the route to Verdict document as though it is a recognized document. I have never seen this document until today

 

[Clio]

The tweets I have been reading state the document the jury called route to Verdict. Not the route to Verdict document as though it is a recognized document. I have never seen this document until today

Steven Morris
Judge repeats parts of a "route to verdict" document he gave Tabak jury. Did Tabak intend to kill or cause really serious bodily harm?

 

[Neurotripsy]

If I were VERY open-minded I would only begin to consider manslaughter if:
• There weren't any injuries save for those on her neck.
• He had called an ambulance or tried to resuscitate her.
• He left her body in the flat instead of hiding it.
• He didn't shift the blame onto Chris Jefferies.

And even then it would be a massive stretch. Manslaughter cases involving strangulation are unheard of for the perfectly logical reason that you can't squeeze somebody's neck by accident!

 

[veggiefan]

The tweets I have been reading state the document the jury called route to Verdict. Not the route to Verdict document as though it is a recognized document. I have never seen this document until today

Not sure I totally understand your point, but a "Route to Verdict" is not a printed document. It is a series of questions that are unique to the trial in question, that the judge writes down and hands to the jury as an aid to help them reach a verdict. It has no fixed form.

The Crown Court Bench Book gives numerous examples of the sort of questions that might be asked in a "Route to Verdict" in various types of case.

 

[Sammyme]

But I can't get over the fact that he squeezed her neck. Why would any reasonable person do that? He must have known that would cause her serious harm. My seven year old son knows that.

That's it. He also held her mouth shut at the same time.

In court when he was asked a question along the lines of what would happen when you press someone's mouth and neck, he said he didn't know.

Does anyone seriously believe that?

It looks as if someone on the jury does.

 

[Firefly75]

Whyever not? I doubt that she was at fault, but to say that you cannot accept that she was even partly at fault merely tells me that you are unable to keep an open mind. Sorry!

Personally, I cannot support the idea of blaming the victim.

It reminds me of the way they said years ago that by wearing short skirts, figure hugging jeans, etc., or by going certain places, women were inviting rape and assault and it was therefore their fault.

No, no, and again no. You and I will have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[stmarysmead]

It's just counter intuitive to say that a grown man of more than average intelligence does not know that grabbing a much smaller woman by the neck,and applying force to that area...might cause her a potential problem in BREATHING.

There are some things we know intuitively. We know not to put granny in her wheelchair in the garden in a fierce lightning storm. We know not to put baby and pram sunning on in the middle of the highway. We know if we are holding a very hot iron, it will hurt if we suddenly place it on our sleeping partner's back.

If we do any of these things and then say..."Gee, how did this tragedy happen?"...it is a credibility ABOMINATION.

We should know that fierce pressure of our hands on another, smaller, weaker person's neck and sustained pressure..KILLS. This is not rocket science.

Remember he was face to face with her.

Let's take the hot iron scenario. Even if on an impulse you thrust it onto someone you are arguing with...count to twenty slowly..imagine the face of the person who is enduring the pain you are inflicting! Imagine watching that...as you slowly count to twenty.

VT is dangerous. He is either such a simpleton... about simple dangers that his actions might bring to others... that he needs to be locked away so he doesn't decide to rock baby to sleep in the clothes dryer...or he is cunning beyond all human empathy.

 

[veggiefan]

If I were VERY open-minded I would only begin to consider manslaughter if:

... but nobody (least of all the jury) has to consider manslaughter, do they?

 

[Firefly75]

If I were VERY open-minded I would only begin to consider manslaughter if:
• There weren't any injuries save for those on her neck.
• He had called an ambulance or tried to resuscitate her.
• He left her body in the flat instead of hiding it.
• He didn't shift the blame onto Chris Jefferies.

And even then it would be a massive stretch. Manslaughter cases involving strangulation are unheard of for the perfectly logical reason that you can't squeeze somebody's neck by accident!

I'm with you on this one.
I think he's just trying to see what he can get away with now.

 

[Sammyme]

What hope is there? They aren't even sure of the question.

There may be only one or two who aren't sure or who are addressing a different question or taking a different view from the rest.

 

[Curious Alice]

He chose to make an uninvited move on her, he chose to throttle her, he chose not to less her go as she had the air and life squeezed out of her and she was frightened and in pain, he chose to move her body and discard it like rubbish, he chose to implicate the LL, he subsequently lied and tried to cover his tracks.

Choices, choices, choices all along the way. And every time he made the wrong choice. I will be very disappointed in a NG verdict, very disappointed indeed.

 

[veggiefan]

Personally, I cannot support the idea of blaming the victim.

So let's say that the victim has just raped and murdered your baby, and you kill him in revenge.

Are you really saying that I cannot blame the victim in any way for what has happened?

No, no, and again no. You and I will have to agree to disagree on this.

If you say so.

 

[Clio]

From Steven Morris
Before jury sent back out, judge repeated part of his summing up re "intention".

From Skynewsgatherer
After looking at evidence. If jury are sure there was intent they should convict. If not they should find Tabak not guilty, says judge

Looks very possible to me that some jurors may be confusing intent with motive

 

[notsure]

They're going back in!

 

[Neurotripsy]

richardpayneitv
Back in court for #Tabak

 

[Clio]

A verdict on the way?
Steven Morris
Vincent Tabak trial: we're being called back into court...

 

[Neurotripsy]

Please let this be it...

 

[Luna15]

Oh dear. They created a document called "route to verdict". Sounds like they have over engineered this and confused themselves

SkyNewsWebster Isabel Webster
#tabak's deception of his gf and misleading of police may assist the jury in their assessment of him as a truthful witness, the judge says.

I am not taking into account anything that VT has said, he is a pathological liar who has been on a mission to save his own skin from the second he killed JY, nobody in their right mind would consider him a credible witness.

The judge has now instructed them to go on the evidence skymartinbrunt martinbrunt Judge: "You must examine what was said and done during the attackthe nature of the nature of the attack and the injuries inflicted

well as I do not believe a word he has said let's look at "the attack" - the bruised ribs and back, the bleeding on her head, the bruises on her arms and restraint marks on her wrist, his finger marks at the back of her neck - all indicate a struggle and fight for life, IF she was struggling and fighting for life as I believe she was, he deliberately continued to restrain her, and did not stop until she "went limp" could this great lump of a guy not find another way of restraining a little lady such was JY?

and if she was not struggling during those 20-30 seconds as he claims < WHY DID HE NOT LET GO, he claims she was not resisting, if (after the 2nd scream) when he placed his hands around her throat she was 'not struggling' so why did he need to keep his hands around her throat for a further 20-30 second?

The jury are struggling with intent because, like us they cannot fathom in what cirumstances this all happened, and because like a lot of us they do not believe it all escalated from his 'making a pass'.

 

[Curious Alice]

Looks very possible to me that some jurors may be confusing intent with motive

I always thought this might be an issue, we had the same problem here on this forum - most of us have at one time sought a motive in a natural humanitarian need to understand what drives a person to commit the crime, but motive in this instance is totally irrelevant. I do not think that some murders even have a motive behind the act. It is not an absolute.