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

[Clio]

Yes, I would have expected the prosecution to have wanted to bring all that out into the open. Presumably written statements can only be used if both sides agree that they don't wish to cross-examine? Wasn't it also said that Mr Hardyman had a cold - colds can sometimes bung up your ears and affect your hearing.

Re bold above - I believe that's the case. It's how judges have explained it when I've done jury service.

Maybe the prosecution think their evidence is so compelling they hardly need to point out how flimsy Mr Hardiman's statement might be.

Actually, thinking about it, does it matter that much? VT is not denying she screamed. He's almost saying that if she hadn't screamed, he would not have put his hand on her throat and she wouldn't be dead!

So why bother getting a defence witness to say they heard nothing.......

 

[FiestyFairy]

I can't see what was achieved by the statement from the neighbor in the top flat who said he heard nothing at all that night. VT confirms that JY screamed very loudly and it was because he wanted her to stop screaming that he strangled her.

He now has a defense statement saying there was no scream :{. What is this about?

 

[Cherwell]

Perhaps, although I'd call that a table! I can't see anyone calling it a pedestal.

Well, it's more a word to describe the style of the table, ie supported by a central column rather than by four legs. I wasn't suggesting it was identical to that, just trying to find an image that was vaguely similar. It just seemed possible that there might be a small, lightweight garden table for use on the patio, but it could also have been something to support a Christmas tree. Ah well, it's not very important.

 

[Cherwell]

So why bother getting a defence witness to say they heard nothing.......

Yes, it is weird, since they started by seeming to dispute the timing of the screams!

 

[Sammyme]

He wasn't recalled today. I think you must have misunderstood something a few posts back.

Thank you for confirming that he wasn't called today.

It was this post which led me to think he had been:

How utterly bizarre! William Clegg said something along the lines of "that's as far as we can go today" after Dr Cary had taken the stand & they knocked off even earlier than usual! Surely, if it had only been intended that that statement was read, they could have fitted it in before close of play Friday?

The poster has since clarified that it was a reference to last week.

 

[Tricksy]

Do we know there are going to be any more defence witnesses? I would have thought maybe some character references but these could be written.

Then the prosecution and defence summaries which could take a while. Then there's the judges summation and instructions to the jury.

SWNS suggested this morning that the jury could be sent for deliberation mid week

Tbh, I think we are more likely to hear those after the verdict and prior to sentencing. There will likely be pre-sentencing reports by a Probation Officer and/or Mental Health reports made at that time too.

I think the defence may allude to bits in any character references when summing up, but may not read them out fully.

I have written character reports before (but not in murder cases, thankfully), they were read by the Judge and alluded to when the Judge was deliberating about the sentence. They were also mentioned by the defence in summing up to.

However, its worth noting that if found guilty he will get a mandatory life sentence, but where character references may help will be when the Judge decides the minimum that he will have to serve. But then the Judge will balance the character references etc, against his behaviour prior to, during and after Joanna's death etc.

 

[bos]

Thank you for confirming that he wasn't called today.

It was this post which led me to think he had been:

How utterly bizarre! William Clegg said something along the lines of "that's as far as we can go today" after Dr Cary had taken the stand & they knocked off even earlier than usual! Surely, if it had only been intended that that statement was read, they could have fitted it in before close of play Friday?

The poster has since clarified that it was a reference to last week.

Sorry:blushing: , it was clear in my mind that I was talking about Friday & I didn't express it well in the post.

 

[Clio]

Yes, it is weird, since they started by seeming to dispute the timing of the screams!

Which is understandable. It's not in VT's interest for JY to have died soon after she got home. Looks too much like it was planned. Also means the text he sent TM at 9:25pm is after she died and an obvious attempt at a cover up.

Talking of texts, we know VT sent texts at 9:25pm and 10:30pm to TM

What I had missed is that VT also sent TM a text after he dumped JY's body. I could be wrong but I don't think we got to hear the content of that third text

 

[Sammyme]

Well, it's more a word to describe the style of the table, ie supported by a central column rather than by four legs. I wasn't suggesting it was identical to that, just trying to find an image that was vaguely similar. It just seemed possible that there might be a small, lightweight garden table for use on the patio, but it could also have been something to support a Christmas tree. Ah well, it's not very important.

Yes. I have had a pedestal desk and a pedestal table in the past. In fact I think there is still one in a spare room upstairs. The image was helpful but the point I was making was that the item in the hall might have been something else as that was pretty clearly what one would call a patio or garden table. It might have been a plant stand or something decorative? As you say, not that important.

 

[KMP09]

Hi all

I'm new to WS i posted my reply on the older thread

Now i've been interested in this case since Jo had first gone missing, it then turned into a mystery profiled case when Jo was believed to be abducted.

When CJ the Landlord was then falsely accused of Jo's murder, Tabak was in his flat preparing a course of action to get him off as the next suspect.

Since VT was then rightfully accused and then taken into custody we are now looking at his defence in court, a bored young man on the night of Jo's murder he had made it clear to his then girlfriend TM that he hoped she was having a better time at her Christmas staff party, while he brooded at home all alone with his pizza and beer.

After hearing all the courts evidence so far i'm still confused with a few thing about VT story on that night, he said in his statement that when Jo asked him into her flat she offered him some pizza and a cider, then he goes on too say in his statement he refused the drink because he was driving later to pick up his girlfriend even though he had said he was drinking beer earlier on? Abit of a contadiction there from VT.

Also his time scale of events don't match the time of screams witnessed earlier about 8.40pm, i would imagine that if he had been in his flat around 7pm then how would he of known Jo was home at 8.40pm as her entrance too her flat is on the other side of the building, i would suspect he was hanging around outside maybe waiting for her return then he might of grabbed her from behind as she was entering her front door.

I believe that he attacked her straight away after seeing her return, as Mr Lickley as stated on the pretext of using her cat as a way of introducing himself, but i think it was more of him being angry and he wanted a confrontation with Jo about her cat wandering into his flat again.

I say this because i have seen major domestic arguments among neighbors just over silly petty stuff, sometimes even escalating into a serious injury, i think there was some contention between the two neighbors but not yet been brought up as evidence.

I think VT is using the flirtation and kiss between Jo and him as an excuse to hide his inner angry feelings towards her in court, as evidence have now shown there wasn't a direct sexual assault on Jo's body although it wasn't ruled out, just the brutal violence of strangulation, bruising on her wrists, body and fractured nose.

 

[Tricksy]

I can't see what was achieved by the statement from the neighbor in the top flat who said he heard nothing at all that night. VT confirms that JY screamed very loudly and it was because he wanted her to stop screaming that he strangled her.

He now has a defense statement saying there was no scream :{. What is this about?

To me and this is only MHO, what the defence are hoping that says is the neighbour in the top flat did not hear a violent and prolonged struggle. That it is hoped that the Jury would buy VT's story that Joanna's death happened very quickly and fairly quietly. That it was not a long and drawn out assault that was overheard.

That is only my impression of that evidence, but I think that may be what the defence are trying to imply here.

 

[Sammyme]

Sorry:blushing: , it was clear in my mind that I was talking about Friday & I didn't express it well in the post.

No problem bos. With hindsight I can clearly see what you were referring to. Today was a day of surprises and confusion all round!

 

[Curious Alice]

Also his time scale of events don't match the time of screams witnessed earlier about 8.40pm, i would imagine that if he had been in his flat around 7pm then how would he of known Jo was home at 8.40pm as her entrance too her flat is on the other side of the building, i would suspect he was hanging around outside maybe waiting for her return then he might of grabbed her from behind as she was entering her front door.

I believe that he attacked her straight away after seeing her return, ....[....]

Hello and welcome.:greetings:

I also think that we have been served a load of BS from VT regarding the timeline, in order to suit his 10 minute chat, pass, accident, panic explanation. There is more to it than this I am certain (buried in the dunno's and can't remembers), and somewhere in that extended timeline she achieved many of the injuries reported. The staging also took a fair bit of time, with some thought given to what he was going to take, move, mess (and maybe clean) up.

I am leaning towards murder rather than manslaughter atm (because I am sure he is lying...a lot) but whether the prosecution have done enough to convince the court remains to be seen. Not sure that they have at this moment.

 

[Clio]

To me and this is only MHO, what the defence are hoping that says is the neighbour in the top flat did not hear a violent and prolonged struggle. That it is hoped that the Jury would buy VT's story that Joanna's death happened very quickly and fairly quietly. That it was not a long and drawn out assault that was overheard.

That is only my impression of that evidence, but I think that may be what the defence are trying to imply here.

That's possible. Would the prosecution know, at the point that they agreed a written statement would suffice, exactly how the defence might use that testimony in their summation. And if so, why did the prosecution not want Mr Hardiman in court in order to establish he was asleep at the time and has hearing difficulties I wonder

 

[Neurotripsy]

Imagine poor Neurotripsy getting up at 5.30 for that poor show, hopefully he/she might be there for the summing up/verdict.

I'm actually really glad I did, the points of law discussed put a new spin on the whole thing and it's maddening not being able to discuss any of it! :maddening: Presumably all the events taking place without the jury's presence will reported on after the verdict (correct me if I'm wrong)?

I'm going back for the closing arguments tomorrow, and I'll hang about the courtroom on Wednesday in case the verdict comes in that early... The clerks advised me not to bother with this afternoon's session so I'm just going to get some sleep as I'll probably have to show up even earlier tomorrow morning!

Met a really awful, gossipy couple outside the courtroom, they're attending this afternoon's session and I can totally see them defying the judge's orders and blabbing everything to anyone who'll listen! Anyway, apparently our wires got majorly crossed as they thought I was there to "support" Tabak! My jaw almost dropped!

 

[aneurin]

That's possible. Would the prosecution know, at the point that they agreed a written statement would suffice, exactly how the defence might use that testimony in their summation. And if so, why did the prosecution not want Mr Hardiman in court in order to establish he was asleep at the time and has hearing difficulties I wonder

I imagine that the prosecution closing argument might go something like;

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let me turn now to the defence's case. The defence presented three witnesses, who were, in reverse order a Mr Hardiman, a man who didn't hear or see anything on the night in question....

 

[bijoux]

VT is not denying she screamed...so why bother getting a defence witness to say they heard nothing.

I'm flummoxed!, not to mention disappointed with WC for such a flat and completely anticlimactic conclusion. Perhaps I was hoping he'd pull a white rabbit out of his top hat. Let's hope he delivers an eloquent and compelling address to the court à la Clarence Darrow, which might redeem him somewhat, even if it doesn't get his client an acquittal on the murder charge.

 

[aneurin]

....

So why bother getting a defence witness to say they heard nothing.......

I presume it was to try and close off any suggestion that VT might have been laying in wait and pounced on JY outside the flat.

 

[Clio]

I'm flummoxed!, not to mention disappointed with WC for such a flat and completely anticlimactic conclusion. Perhaps I was hoping he'd pull a white rabbit out of his top hat. Let's hope he delivers an eloquent and compelling address to the court à la Clarence Darrow, which might redeem him somewhat, even if it doesn't get his client an acquittal on the murder charge.

Whatever went on in that point of law discussion this morning may mean that WC wasn't allowed to pull his rabbit out of the hat!

To be fair to WC his client did let him down. Under cross examination VT said he couldn't remember to things that are in his written statement!

After cross examination, WC tried to recover by saying

various theories have been put to you over what happened. How long was it you had your hand around her throat?

And instead of the expected response of "no more than 15-20 seconds" what did he get.......

can't exactly remember

 

[notsure]

As far as I can see, the tweets this morning do not mention the time that Hardyman went to bed. That is surely the most relevant piece of information. I mean, if he went to bed before 8.45, he is more likely to have heard the screams than if he had stayed up until later, watching tv. :sigh: Not enough info.