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

[KMP09]

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..

Hi Alice, its great to be discussing the trail here with everyone

Yes i agree there are to many inconstancies from VT's story, i'm sure 20 seconds of just holding Jo's neck would not be enough to do all the other injuries, so yes i believe his 10 min chat with Jo was actually his 10 min attack on her...

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.

Yes i will also be hoping for Murder for this trail, but looks like there as been more defence evidence about Jo not been heard screaming from inside the flat, seems abit odd that VT said that was his main reason for putting his hands around her neck to keep her quiet???

 

[Clio]

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....

.... an expert pathologist who first thought that the wounds on JY's face had been caused by being pushed into a chair but who now thinks something else.....

 

[goldielox]

Not a hope. Plea bargaining very rarely occurs in the UK and is strongly disliked by judges. In any case, VT has nothing concrete to offer (such as the name of an accomplice) for a reduced sentence. A change of plea after a case has started more often results in a longer tariff once sentence has been passed, since it is such a waste of the court's time and the public's money.

Oh it happens alright. Just not officially, but it does go on.

I know this from personal experience. Someone close to me (mentioned this before) was facing trial for something rather serious years ago. I was called as a prosecution witness too at the time. On the first day of the trial he was late in arriving. An hour or so after the trial was supposed to start the police came in to the prosecution witness' waiting area to inform everyone that the trial was delayed until 2pm because the defendant hadn't yet arrived.

In actual fact he had arrived, and just after 10am- when he arrived I was called downstairs to meet him to hand over a suit I'd brought to court for him, so I knew the reason for the delay was baloney - I'd seen him.

Anyway another hour went by and his barrister appeared asking me for a word. The prosecution had spent the time putting pressure on the defendant to try to get him to plead guilty. The "carrot" was - "change your plea to guilty now and the judge has said you'll get 4-6 years, but if you insist on going not guilty and get convicted you're getting 8-10 years instead".

He wouldn't budge and finally said he would make his decision only after seeing me. So the judge (surprisingly considering I was a witness!) agreed and down to the court cells I went for a chat with him.

To cut a long story short he went guilty....and the judge still gave him 10 years! :crazy:

So it does definitely go on. They dangle a carrot but, because it officially doesn't happen, don't necessarily honour it. There's a lot of dubious stuff goes on behind the scenes the public hasn't a clue about.

If anything similar went on with VT then it probably went on on the first day and before the trial started.

 

[edgedweller]

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!

How interesting for you to be there while they were discussing the 'points of law' - still not sure what that actually means but I'm guessing I will find out in due course after the verdict. I admire you for keeping schtum till then :silenced::silenced: - it will all come out eventually, I'm sure. (I'm just not a patient person!)

The gossipy couple aren't there to support VT are they? Did you remind them that they have to keep their mouths shut until the verdict? These sort of cases always attract some weirdos who have nothing better to do than rubber-neck (of course none of us are like that! LOL!)

 

[notsure]

These sort of cases always attract some weirdos who have nothing better to do than rubber-neck (of course none of us are like that! LOL!)

LOL! Hell no, we are respectable sleuths.:sleuth:

 

[FiestyFairy]

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....

Ha ha ha :floorlaugh:

 

[bijoux]

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!

True, but to be fair to VT, I don't believe he was psychologically fit to be put on the stand.

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 we get.......

can't exactly remember

Yes, I agree!

But as far as the defence's theory of the case is concerned, I think the lot of us could've come up with a better one!

 

[bos]

Neurotripsy, what time did you arrive outside court & how close to the front of the queue to be admitted did that get you?

 

[bijoux]

...the prosecution to apply to be allowed to submit new evidence.

I agree. What was it, I wonder?

 

[Neurotripsy]

How interesting for you to be there while they were discussing the 'points of law' - still not sure what that actually means but I'm guessing I will find out in due course after the verdict. I admire you for keeping schtum till then :silenced::silenced: - it will all come out eventually, I'm sure. (I'm just not a patient person!)

The gossipy couple aren't there to support VT are they? Did you remind them that they have to keep their mouths shut until the verdict? These sort of cases always attract some weirdos who have nothing better to do than rubber-neck (of course none of us are like that! LOL!)

All I can say is they were discussing pieces potential evidence but the judge concluded the jury didn't need to hear it. Really made me wonder what other evidence they've kept back, as I really thought the points they brought up WERE relevant and many things would fall into place for the jury! Argh. So frustrating, as is not being able to tell anybody!

They seemed to be locals who were just touting poor Joanna's demise as pure gossip fodder. They repetitively told me how "terrible" it was but there was no feeling behind it. I just kept smiling and nodding and waiting for them to awkwardly lapse into silence (especially since they kept spouting the wrong facts, eg. "Did you know VT worked at Asda?") but they just kept going and I wouldn't have been able to get a word in if I tried!

 

[Neurotripsy]

Neurotripsy, what time did you arrive outside court & how close to the front of the queue to be admitted did that get you?

I turned up at six and there were about ten Law students in front of me, then nobody turned up until about half-past seven. There were 25 spots for the public but there may be fewer tomorrow if more reporters are showing up, as they reserve their seats beforehand. Quite a few people were turned away and told to come back in the afternoon. If you're going I'd advise you to be REALLY early tomorrow as it's strictly first-come, first-serve and you won't get in without a ticket.

 

[bos]

I turned up at six and there were about ten Law students in front of me, then nobody turned up until about half-past seven. There were 25 spots for the public but there may be fewer tomorrow if more reporters are showing up, as they reserve their seats beforehand. Quite a few people were turned away and told to come back in the afternoon. If you're going I'd advise you to be REALLY early tomorrow as it's strictly first-come, first-serve and you won't get in without a ticket.

I'm not far from Bristol but have pesky kids on half term so won't manage unfortunately.

I know the judge tells the jury to abide by certain rules, does he also address the public gallery about what they can/can't say outside court?

 

[Neurotripsy]

I know the judge tells the jury to abide by certain rules, does he also address the public gallery about what they can/can't say outside court?

Yeah, he basically gave a blanket "nobody in this room can talk/blog/tweet about this in any form" rule.

 

[veggiefan]

Re: plea bargaining

Oh it happens alright. Just not officially, but it does go on.

Ah, what you describe is not plea bargaining: it is an official part of the judicial process, as laid down in sentencing guidelines.

The level of reduction in a sentence is at the discretion of the court, but sentencing guidelines say that there should usually be a reduction of the sentence:

by one third where the accused pleads guilty at the first opportunity

by one quarter for a guilty plea after the trial date has been set

by one tenth for a guilty plea entered "at the door of the court".

I cannot say whether your guy would have got 11 years if he hadn't changed his plea at the door of the court.

It's possible that VT could get one tenth off for a change of plea, but I doubt it now that most of the case has been heard.

But plea bargaining is quite different to tariff reduction. A plea bargain occurs when the prosecution agrees to drop a more serious charge (which could be tricky to prove) in return for a guilty plea on a lesser charge. It is disapproved of in the English judicial system, but it does sometimes happen (particularly in complex fraud cases).

 

[Clio]

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.

From what's being reported, it seems they were told he went to bed at 11:00pm

They have also been told he had a cold at the time

http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...l3VI1N5fRdEpZFzlg?docId=N0249681319463993531A

 

[Curious Alice]

Not ever. Not even after the verdict and sentencing.......

Judges usually lift reporting restrictions post trial. I do know of a case recently (involving a child) when the child's Mother was asked her permission too.

 

[Luna15]

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!

I'm so glad you made it and it wasn't a waste of time.

Will look forward with great interest to the time you can post about the 'legal arguments' - it makes me wonder greatly just how full a picture we have....

from what little you've seen; would you say it is worth trying to form a picture on the pieces of the puzzle we have to hand? or is it an impossible task with the fragments that are in the public domain?

 

[aneurin]

....

But plea bargaining is quite different to tariff reduction. A plea bargain occurs when the prosecution agrees to drop a more serious charge (which could be tricky to prove) in return for a guilty plea on a lesser charge.

Although that process is often commonly referred to as 'plea bargaining', it's formally known as an 'acceptance of plea', and is quite common. The Attorney General has even issued some formal guidelines.

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/P...linesontheacceptanceofpleas(revised2009).aspx

It is disapproved of in the English judicial system, but it does sometimes happen (particularly in complex fraud cases).

Yes, fraud cases are the only cases where you get true plea bargaining in the US sense, where the SFO will do deals with people and offer reduced sentences in return for co-operation. And that's a comparatively recent development.

 

[veggiefan]

Judges usually lift reporting restrictions post after the trial.

In this case, there are no reporting restrictions to lift.

However, it is widely accepted (and laid down in Reporting Restrictions in the Crown Court, published by the Judicial Studies Board and Society of Editors) that reporting what "transpires at times when the jury are asked to withdraw, at any stage before the jury returns its verdict, is ... likely to be a contempt of
court since the report may well defeat the whole purpose of the jury withdrawing".

Once a verdict has been reached and the case is no longer active, such restrictions no longer apply.

 

[Clio]

Once a verdict has been reached and the case is no longer active, such restrictions no longer apply.

So does that mean that once a verdict is returned, we may hear what was discussed in the point of law sessions or is that never revealed?