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

[Sammyme]

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.

Demanding or forcing a kiss and putting an arm around someone who doesn't want any such contact is sexual and grounds for complaint of a sexual assault.

Joanna may have had a fear of being alone for the weekend in that flat. I don't know why mention that she is 25. It is a sort of fear that many women of all ages would recognise. As it turns out, if she was afraid, she had good reason to be.

As far as I know, Joanna and Greg lived good decent responsible lives wherever they chose to live and I don't think any criticism attaches to them for their contribution in society. I think it is unhelpful to say the least to attribute some sort of blame or speculation based on some highly personal view as to how they should live and as to their relations with neighbours. There is nothing to say that Joanna would have been safer had she had more to do with the man who killed her.

 

[otto]

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.

These articles cover some of VT's testimony:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/19/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-court

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/21/vincent-tabak-denies-sexual-motive-joanna-yeates

 

[Clio]

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?

There is no evidence AFAIK of forced entry. I don't believe there is any evidence to support the theory that VT had access to JYs flat either. Both the prosecution and defence suggest that he entered her flat after she got home, not before.

 

[Clio]

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!

True but then it's not very proper for jurors to behave in the way some of them do - as we both know from personal experience.

On one of the times I was called for jury service, I had postponed it once, as you are allowed to do. When the time came to serve, it was still at a really inconvenient time as I was still very busy at work. At the start of the fortnight of service, I put a case to the judge to say why it was difficult for me but he was having none of it. Afterwards I was taken aside by the usher who said, "Don't worry love, it'll be alright"

I didn't get called to a single trial in the whole fortnight

 

[otto]

There is no evidence AFAIK of forced entry. I don't believe there is any evidence to support the theory that VT had access to JYs flat either. Both the prosecution and defence suggest that he entered her flat after she got home, not before.

Quite true. He walked in through the front door after Joanna opened the door. The location of the apron suggests that Joanna was at the front door when he entered. It's unlikely that murder was on his mind because the probability of getting away with murdering his neighbour was very low. In fact, he knew that and moved the body in order to distance himself from the murder; to move the murder scene away from his home. That suggests that he entered her flat for some reason and either because he lost his temper or he misread the situation, she was killed. His naivity regarding women supports the theory that he misread the situation and then panicked. His actions after the murder suggest that she was killed because of anger ... but at the same time, I seem to recall that the judge said not to focus on what happened after the fact.

 

[Nausicaa]

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!

Possibly you've forgotten the theory you're commenting on. My idea is that he was in the flat chatting to Joanna when it came on.

Let's face it, the man says that after ten minutes chat with her he made a pass because he felt like kissing her.

Now it's quite easy to get away with kissing the opposite sex on meeting and on parting but going for a kiss on the lips after ten minutes of conversation does appear inevitably sexual to me. My memories of being a hot-blooded 32 year old male are, um, about 16 years old.

 

[stmarysmead]

There is no evidence AFAIK of forced entry. I don't believe there is any evidence to support the theory that VT had access to JYs flat either. Both the prosecution and defence suggest that he entered her flat after she got home, not before.

We have two separate ongoing discussions here: one based only on the evidence, which is VT's story inclusive of long empty time periods, "I don't remember"s , and a story of a one-sock wearing beckoning neighbor who keeps a spare pair of undies in the hall, and is something of a confused vixen.

The earrings, the panties in the hall, the manner of entry, the pizza, the sock, the injuries, the scream, the strange odyssey of VT and the dead body...from room to room, and flat to flat...are not satisfied by the story VT tells or "facts" available to us from the trial.

Therefore some of us have been speculating what the WHOLE story might be....because VT has certainly not told the whole and complete truth. And there is certainly more here than the limited account he tells...a tale crafted seemingly to fit ONLY what forensics he knows the authorities to possess.

 

[bos]

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.

The two couples may not have known each other but I don't think there any evidence to suggest that they avoided being part of the community. Bear in mind that JY/GR had only recently moved to that address & for much of the that time, VT had been in the US & it's unclear as to whether Tanja was around during that time. There could have been an invitation in the offing, but who's to say that even if they did know each other, that the same thing couldn't have happened?

Apart from all that, I think it's a sweeping generalisation to say that your generation make better neighbours!

 

[notsure]

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 wondered that. I would have thought it would be interesting to hear from her regarding whether she noticed anything unusual in VT's behaviour before or after the event. In addition, I don't know if they would have been allowed to question her on things such as: whether he had spoken about the neighbours before; whether he had general anger management issues; sexual problems (I'm probably pushing it a bit with this one...) etc.

 

[Nausicaa]

We have two separate ongoing discussions here: one based only on the evidence, which is VT's story inclusive of long empty time periods, "I don't remember"s , and a story of a one-sock wearing beckoning neighbor who keeps a spare pair of undies in the hall, and is something of a confused vixen.

ROFL, but with a niggle. Surely VT's theory was that the sock came off while he was chucking the corpse about. The idea that she went to the door wearing only one sock was his counsel's personal contribution. Personally I'd sack a barrister who contradicted my testimony, but then my testimony would be true...

 

[bos]

I wondered that. I would have thought it would be interesting to hear from her regarding whether she noticed anything unusual in VT's behaviour before or after the event. In addition, I don't know if they would have been allowed to question her on things such as: whether he had spoken about the neighbours before; whether he had general anger management issues; sexual problems (I'm probably pushing it a bit with this one...) etc.

I can't help but wonder if there was some kind of evidence from her that the Prosecution wanted to introduce & that's what the day of discussion about points of law were all about.

 

[Curious Alice]

Possibly you've forgotten the theory you're commenting on. My idea is that he was in the flat chatting to Joanna when it came on.

Let's face it, the man says that after ten minutes chat with her he made a pass because he felt like kissing her.

Now it's quite easy to get away with kissing the opposite sex on meeting and on parting but going for a kiss on the lips after ten minutes of conversation does appear inevitably sexual to me. My memories of being a hot-blooded 32 year old male are, um, about 16 years old.

I wondered about the customs for cheek kissing in Holland ? Different greetings in most European countries. I found this in wiki...but I don't think it throws any light on anything, he has admitted going in for a kiss on the lips, not a customary greeting kiss on the cheek.

A kiss is a common gesture of greeting, and at times a kiss is expected. Throughout all cultures people greet one another as a sign of recognition, affection, friendship and reverence. While hand shakes, hugs, bows, nods and nose rubbing are all acceptable greetings, the most common greeting is a kiss, or kisses, on the cheek. Cheek kissing is “a ritual or social gesture to indicate friendship, perform a greeting, to confer congratulations, to comfort someone, or to show respect.”[1] Cheek kissing is most common in Europe and Latin America and has become a standard greeting in Southern Europe.
While cheek kissing is a common greeting in many cultures, each country has a unique way of kissing. In Russia, Slovenia, Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro the Netherlands and Egypt it is customary to “kiss three times, on alternate cheeks.”[2] Italians usually kiss twice in a greeting and in Mexico and Belgium only one kiss is necessary. In the Galapagos women kiss on the right cheek only[3] and in Oman it is not unusual for men to kiss one another on the nose after a handshake.[4] French culture accepts a number of ways to greet depending on the region. Two kisses are most common throughout all of France but in Provence three kisses are given and in Nantes four are exchanged.[5]

 

[Curious Alice]

ROFL, but with a niggle. Surely VT's theory was that the sock came off while he was chucking the corpse about. The idea that she went to the door wearing only one sock was his counsel's personal contribution. Personally I'd sack a barrister who contradicted my testimony, but then my testimony would be true...

If an accused persons council contradicts the defendants evidence, could that potentially be an excuse for an appeal ? Anyone know ?

 

[Curious Alice]

We have two separate ongoing discussions here: one based only on the evidence, which is VT's story inclusive of long empty time periods, "I don't remember"s , and a story of a one-sock wearing beckoning neighbor who keeps a spare pair of undies in the hall, and is something of a confused vixen.

The earrings, the panties in the hall, the manner of entry, the pizza, the sock, the injuries, the scream, the strange odyssey of VT and the dead body...from room to room, and flat to flat...are not satisfied by the story VT tells or "facts" available to us from the trial.

Therefore some of us have been speculating what the WHOLE story might be....because VT has certainly not told the whole and complete truth. And there is certainly more here than the limited account he tells...a tale crafted seemingly to fit ONLY what forensics he knows the authorities to possess.

I do love your tongue in cheeks accounts stmarysmede; put like that it all sound so damn ridiculous, and rather obviously farcical. I hope a few of the Jurors are viewing VT's account with such incredulity.

 

[edgedweller]

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.

Makes me wonder whether he read something on her work email that made him jealous...

 

[KMP09]

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.

Exactly my thoughts in my earlier theory some young people love playing loud music in their homes, while some less quieter type's of people prefer not be be disturbed.

Makes you think if this was the kind of conversation between VT and Jo had before something happened.

 

[otto]

For a little levity while we wait for the verdict, I really enjoyed the imagery captured in the comment from Goatmilk the other day ...

 

[Curious Alice]

Exactly my thoughts in my earlier theory some young people love playing load music in their homes, while some less quieter type's of people prefer not be be disturbed.

Makes you think if this was the kind of conversation between VT and Jo had before something happened.

I can't see him losing his temper about a noisy party - were he and Tanya not going away to Cambridge and Holland ? They would not have been disturbed.

 

[edgedweller]

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.

I don't think Jo was that nervous. She had plenty planned and I think her words of 'dreading' the weekend may have been under the influence of a little cider and being a bit over-dramatic in front of friends. She walked alone on a dark night for nearly an hour on her way home and seemed 'jolly' to her friend Rebecca Scott, didn't she? And 'jovial' to her colleagues? If she was really dreading it I think she'd've stayed in the pub, maybe encouraged the others to go on to a club or go for a curry or something.

Also, VT had only been back from LA for two weeks when this happened. In the dead of winter, and all four of them had full-time jobs. They didn't have any opportunity to get to know each other, really. There's nothing to say that had this not happened, they may have introduced themselves in the new year and become more than nodding acquaintances. Perhaps Jo DID invite him in, thinking that she'd invite him and Tanja to the Xmas party they were having later that week. Who knows?

I don't buy the screaming because of a 'pass'. Nobody does that, unless you're a nun or a Victorian maiden aunt. Jo was a modern girl and seemingly confident in her own skin - it might embarrass her a little or make her uncomfortable, but screaming? No, if there were screams he did more than a gentle pass.

 

[otto]

If an accused persons council contradicts the defendants evidence, could that potentially be an excuse for an appeal ? Anyone know ?

It could be grounds for ineffective counsel in some places.