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

[edgedweller]

I am sure that that is the last thing she would be willing to talk about. She has managed to remain private throughout, and no one has managed to get her to utter a word. If she didn't want to testify, as I suspect she doesn't, then she probably made it clear that she might not give all the answers they wanted - in other words, presented herself as a hostile witness. In her place I would feel utterly mortified and I too would keep my head down as far as possible.

Don't you HAVE to testify if you're called, though? She's not allowed to lie under oath, so she couldn't tailor her answers, could she?

 

[Cherwell]

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.

I never suggested that either couple habitually played loud music. What I meant was that parties usually generate some noise, and it's diplomatic to invite close neighbours who may be inconvenienced.

 

[Curious Alice]

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

This seemed like an odd response (BIB)

Lickley questioned Tabak about online research he had done after the killing on subjects such as the difference between manslaughter and murder and the definition of sexual assault. Tabak said: "I was a bit worried if my pass could be seen as sexual conduct."

He had just killed a girl, and yet he was a BIT worried about a pass being seen as sexual conduct ? Ye Gods :waitasec: Nothing else to be a BIT worried about Vincent ?

 

[Cherwell]

Don't you HAVE to testify if you're called, though? She's not allowed to lie under oath, so she couldn't tailor her answers, could she?

Yes, you do have to testify if called, but if you come across as an awkward customer or a loose cannon, then they're unlikely to want to take the risk.

 

[Curious Alice]

Yes, you do have to testify if called, but if you come across as an awkward customer or a loose cannon, then they're unlikely to want to take the risk.

And exactly the reason why neither side called CJ I expect - angry with both A&S police and with VT. I would be in his shoes :innocent:

 

[KMP09]

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.

Yes i think your right i wasn't sure when they were leaving for their holidays, though i think i read it was later in the week when they went to Cams and then Holland, also Tanya hadn't really spent any time living at VT's flat while he was away in the states.

 

[Cherwell]

The party hadn't yet taken place, so how could there have been a row about it?

Tanya hadn't really spent any time living at VT's flat while he was away in the states.

I don't think that's the case. Wasn't it mentioned that she had a female friend to stay while he was away?

 

[otto]

This seemed like an odd response (BIB)

Lickley questioned Tabak about online research he had done after the killing on subjects such as the difference between manslaughter and murder and the definition of sexual assault. Tabak said: "I was a bit worried if my pass could be seen as sexual conduct."

He had just killed a girl, and yet he was a BIT worried about a pass being seen as sexual conduct ? Ye Gods :waitasec: Nothing else to be a BIT worried about Vincent ?

He has an answer for everything ... but more likely it was his guilty mind looking at the full extent of the consequences for his actions.

 

[Curious Alice]

He has an answer for everything ... but more likely it was his guilty mind looking at the full extent of the consequences for his actions.

The average person wouldn't know much about the impact and consequence of an element of sexual intent or a sexual assault on a manslaughter / murder charge though.

That shows an unusual level of knowledge. I had no idea, until this case, that a sexual intent could possibly elevate a lesser charge to one of murder.

 

[KMP09]

The party hadn't yet taken place, so how could there have been a row about it?

If she had supposedly mentioned to VT that there was going to be a Party in the week i believe it was going to be the following tuesday, i'm just thinking that if there had been any noise compliants between the two couples even so when Jo and Greg had first moved in, then i would think she would try and defuse it before it happened?

 

[weeeva]

Me neither.

The thing that knocks this theory though is why was her apron in the hall? I wouldn't put an apron on to put a pizza in the oven but I would put one on to bake....ullhair:

I had a thought the other day when we were discussing why J's underwear would be lying about her hallway. I recall reading somewhere that GR had said the underwear should have been in the laundry basket, which led me to think that perhaps J's was going to put a washing in the machine. It's possible she was going to wash the apron too before starting her baking over the weekend.

 

[Cherwell]

If she had supposedly mentioned to VT that there was going to be a Party in the week i believe it was going to be the following tuesday, i'm just thinking that if there had been any noise compliants between the two couples even so when Jo and Greg had first moved in, then i would think she would try and defuse it before it happened?

There hadn't been any problems about noise. Tanja was quoted as saying that Greg & Jo were quieter than the previous occupants.

 

[Sammyme]

There hadn't been any problems about noise. Tanja was quoted as saying that Greg & Jo were quieter than the previous occupants.

Yes, we've discussed that recently on here.

 

[Sammyme]

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.

Six days. He returned on 11 December.

 

[weeeva]

I totally agree with you, him already being in the flat is the only scenario that I can get to nearly fit. GR & JY had only been in the flat for 7 weeks, I’m sure when the last tenants moved out there were some repairs/decoration or suchlike to be seen to – even cleaning. CJ spent a lot of time abroad – would he have entrusted VT or TM with the keys to let in workmen or suchlike? How well did VT & TM get on with the previous tenants? Had they entrusted them with a key at any point? Did VT notice where they kept the spare one outside? All these things are probably classed as ‘supposition’ and I don’t think they would be able to be presented in court, I did wonder if the Judge developed one of his nervous twitches at this point [stevenmorris20 steven morris Judge says Tabak "gained access" to Yeates' flat and killed her. < [twitterers speechmarks not mine]... I think a lot more will come out after the trial – there are too many pieces of the puzzle missing for us to get a full picture.

Anyone who doubts how easy it is to get into a locked house, enter ‘key bumping’ into youtube search or google it.

I cannot understand why JY’s keys were found in her bag on the dining table if she had come in and locked herself in, and we all know how VT likes to ‘cover himself’ – no way do I believe he had the presence of mind to leave that door on the latch, I believe he could have fled the scene in shock immediately afterwards, how did he know that someone hadn’t heard the screams and were coming to investigate? No way did he leave that door on the latch for her to be discovered...

That would mean that VT not only knew that GR was away for the weekend, but mistakenly thought that J had went with him.
That brings us back to the same old question, how would VT know GR was away?

 

[MMENJBRIT]

Shouldn't it be "emboldened"? Perhaps "bolded" is an Americanism, though.

does it really matter?

 

[KMP09]

There hadn't been any problems about noise. Tanja was quoted as saying that Greg & Jo were quieter than the previous occupants.

Yes but your going by VT's and TM version of events? how do you know that it is true, many people have quoted stuff some of it have not been that reliable?

My only suggestion is it might of been a case of a domestic dispute, but then there as not been any evidence of that either?

 

[whiterum]

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 agree, even the prosecution and the defence seem to have no definite scenario of what actually happened that night they both seem disjointed and unclear.

Since VT is the only one who knows the true account, they can only guess at what best fits in with the evidence they possess and what he tells them.

His story doesn’t ring true because it appears he has invented a basic scenario that best suits the evidence and adds bits and pieces when he sees fit

Maybe the true event is too condemning for him to disclose because it is a classic case of cold blooded murder on a vulnerable young girl with clear intent and no excuse possible.

Maybe his makeshift account was the best he could do as a cover for the real truth and may at least give him a chance however slight, of evading a murder charge.

 

[Curious Alice]

[/B]

That would mean that VT not only knew that GR was away for the weekend, but mistakenly thought that J had went with him.
That brings us back to the same old question, how would VT know GR was away?

Landlord ? This alleged exchange was in the public domain even prior to any arrest.

 

[Curious Alice]

I agree, even the prosecution and the defence seem to have no definite scenario of what actually happened that night they both seem disjointed and unclear.

Since VT is the only one who knows the true account, they can only guess at what best fits in with the evidence they possess and what he tells them.

His story doesn’t ring true because it appears he has invented a basic scenario that best suits the evidence and adds bits and pieces when he sees fit

Maybe the true event is too condemning for him to disclose because it is a classic case of cold blooded murder on a vulnerable young girl with clear intent and no excuse possible.

Maybe his makeshift account was the best he could do as a cover for the real truth and may at least give him a chance however slight, of evading a murder charge.

Can you remember the days before DNA & CCTV ? Where would this case be without it ?