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

[Clio]

A not guilty verdict would worry me because it would imply that you can strangle and smother someone to death and avoid being found guilty of murder if you say you didn't mean any harm and make ludicrous statements such as that you didn't know that strangling and smothering led to death. It must worry the judge for that reason too.

After reading about the pilot that had already dug a grave for his wife before he killed her, and getting a Manslaughter verdict, sadly nothing will surprise me.

It some respects it doesn't make that much difference what the jury decide. It comes down to what the judge thinks and the sentence he deals out

 

[Sammyme]

After reading about the pilot that had already dug a grave for his wife before he killed her, and getting a Manslaughter verdict, sadly nothing will surprise me.

That sounds extraordinary. Not having read the case, though, I have no idea how that came about.

 

[FiestyFairy]

Demonstrated by the fact that he did not let her go, IMO.

Also evidenced by the fact he didnt summon help or try to resuscitate

 

[Curious Alice]

That sounds extraordinary. Not having read the case, though, I have no idea how that came about.

The link is in this thread a few pages back, one of the other members mentioned it to me yesterday - shocking stuff !

 

[Nausicaa]

I'd need to know that he intended her to die and I'm not sure the proof of that has been demonstrated.

Suppose for a moment that she hadn't died. Suppose that being nearly strangled to death and smothered had succeeded, by some miracle, in calming her hysteria and making her stop screaming. VT has now committed a very serious form of assault and his victim has survived, will complain and will identify him as the assailant. She will also state the context of precisely what he did that originally made her scream. He may be tried for attempted murder. He may be tried for attempted rape. He will certainly be tried for assault and, having bruised her neck and damaged her laryngeal cartilage, will be found guilty.

Goodbye girlfriend, goodbye job, goodbye public esteem, goodbye future...

And all of that will have flashed before his eyes while he was squeezing. (At intense moments the mind's capacity for concentration is in fact increased, not diminished.) Oh yes, he's telling the truth when he says that he squeezed her neck for at least 20 seconds to make her be quiet. But he needed the resulting silence to be permanent, and he successfully achieved that.

 

[Clio]

That sounds extraordinary. Not having read the case, though, I have no idea how that came about.

Here you go
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/24/berkshire-wife-killer-25-years

 

[FiestyFairy]

That sounds extraordinary. Not having read the case, though, I have no idea how that came about.

He claimed diminished responsibility so it is automatically manslaughter

 

[Luna15]

You don't do it accidentally. However, I think it's possible to grip someone tightly around the neck on purpose but without the intention to kill them. The intention could be restraint, to overpower, to gain control of the situation. I'm not saying this was definitely VT's intention but there's enough doubt IMO to preclude me from judging him to be guilty of murder rather than manslaughter.

That's me being dispassionate of course. If I were one of JY's family or friends I might well want to see him locked up for 30 years at the very least.

he HAD control of the situation, he said himself she was not struggling and he still DID NOT LET GO.

 

[bees]

What proof would you be satisfied with?

As I said before:

I think if her neck injuries showed more force for longer it would be conclusive proof that he intended to strangle her to death.

I'm assuming that I'd need to be "beyond all reasonable doubt" to cast a vote for a guilty of murder verdict and personally, I'm not.

 

[Sammyme]

Here you go
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/24/berkshire-wife-killer-25-years

Thanks for the information and link, Curious Alice and Clio. I'm sure I saw references to it in this thread or in newspapers but didn't read any of them.

Edit to add: And FiestyFairy.

 

[Clio]

From Martin Evans
No verdict in the #JoYeates trial until 2pm
To clarify that is no verdict BEFORE 2pm

From Westnewsprod
Nothing from court till at least 1400. This does not been there will be anything at that time

From Jon Kay
Judge wont take a verdict before 1400. Jury deliberate over lunch. Vincent Tabak denies murdering Jo Yeates.

 

[2goldfish]

As I said before:


I'm assuming that I'd need to be "beyond all reasonable doubt" to cast a vote for a guilty of murder verdict and personally, I'm not.

I'm not either in my heart and my instinct I believe he meant to hurt her, probably to kill her when it went too far, but logically, I cant be sure.

but I have to keep asking myself why his testimony consisted primarily of "I dont know, I cant remember" and why he pointed the finger at poor CJ. that speaks much more to murder than manslaughter. so does moving the body. so does not calling for help when the "accident" occured. where are his google searches for resuscitation for example.

I dont envy this jury one bit. I've no idea what I would say if I had to, only that I wont fault them for either choice.

 

[Luna15]

He claimed diminished responsibility so it is automatically manslaughter

dont mean to veer OT but... not content with getting away with murder, he's appealing against his sentance..... another family fighting for 'Justice for Jo'

http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2101425_pilot_who_killed_his_wife_to_appeal

and as for this sicko :silenced:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...ry-french-mistress-in-prison-115875-23507238/

 

[Curious Alice]

where are his google searches for resuscitation for example.

Where indeed ? He made no attempt, gave no thought to it. He intended to kill her to shut her up and hopefully protect his reputation and his cosy little life. There was a calculated mind after the event that hints far more at a cold killer and man in control, than someone who has just lost his mind and committed a crazy act in the spur of the moment. To understand the kind of man he is is to understand his intent IMO.

 

[Clio]

They don't even have to be sure he intented to kill. If they are sure that he intended serious harm, it's enough for a guilty verdict.

Extracts from Judges summary

Judge talks about length of time of the strangulation. suggests to jury 'the neck is a vulnerable area' and defendant would have known this

"It's also a matter for you that the neck is a very vulnerable area," says judge. "and that Joanna would have struggled,"

Judge 'the defendant accepts he could have let her go....he accepts he could have resucitated her'

When he strangled Joanna was he intending to kill or at the very least to cause her very serious harm?

 

[Curious Alice]

They don't even have to be sure he intented to kill. If they are sure that he intended serious harm, it's enough for a guilty verdict.

Extracts from Judges summary

Judge talks about length of time of the strangulation. suggests to jury 'the neck is a vulnerable area' and defendant would have known this

"It's also a matter for you that the neck is a very vulnerable area," says judge. "and that Joanna would have struggled,"

Judge 'the defendant accepts he could have let her go....he accepts he could have resucitated her'

When he strangled Joanna was he intending to kill or at the very least to cause her very serious harm?

This 'serious harm' is the clincher. I do find it hard to fathom that the jury would get derailed by some of the other points introduced as evidence - the judge was clear about "serious harm" = Gulty, in his summary.

 

[Luna15]

As I said before:

I think if her neck injuries showed more force for longer it would be conclusive proof that he intended to strangle her to death.

I'm assuming that I'd need to be "beyond all reasonable doubt" to cast a vote for a guilty of murder verdict and personally, I'm not.

BBM

How fortunate for the defendant that the victim died within 20 seconds.... now we'll never know how long he would have kept his hand around her neck until she "went limp".

 

[Clio]

This 'serious harm' is the clincher. I do find it hard to fathom that the jury would get derailed by some of the other points introduced as evidence - the judge was clear about "serious harm" = Gulty, in his summary.

It's pretty clear IMHO what the judge thinks. However, it's human nature to try and rationalise "why" he did it. As I said before, I'm pretty sure the jury are getting hung up about what really happened and trying to find a scenario in which it makes sense that it could have happened. Just like we are doing on this forum.

They are not legal experts and they only heard the judges summary once, hence the question this morning about "intent" I suspect

 

[Curious Alice]

BBM

How fortunate for the defendant that the victim died within 20 seconds.... now we'll never know how long he would have kept his hand around her neck until she "went limp".

20 seconds has become the mantra, VT's own defence witness said (under cross) that text books can indicate 15 - 45 seconds IIRC.

 

[Clio]

20 seconds has become the mantra, VT's own defence witness said (under cross) that text books can indicate 15 - 45 seconds IIRC.

You are quite right - we only have VT's word that it was 20 seconds. And even that's a long time IMO

Dr Cary said under cross examination
Carey says forensic text books often quote 15-30 seconds for strangulation. lickley asks 'or 15-45'. Yes says Carey 'depending on textbook'

Also, there is this from Dr Delaney
#Tabak prosecution: "evidence of multi-focal bruising on neck, indicative of a hand changing position",