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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was really struggling myself to decide what my verdict would have been had I been on the jury, I was erring towards manslaughter, but on the morning the jury reached their verdict I had sudden clarity about it - I just didn't see how anyone could hold another person's throat like that and not be aware of the consequences of what they were doing.

Like others I perhaps felt I wasn't aware that you could strangle someone in as little as 15-20 seconds. Maybe VT wasn't aware either - but the fact was he was there, holding her throat, he could SEE what was happening, SEE her distress and he didn't stop.

Looking back at the judge's directions to the jury, his meaning now is as clear as day. Perhaps it was a risk not allowing the evidence about VT's interests in violent *advertiser censored*, and choking, but at the end of the day it wasn't really relevant: it didn't matter WHY he was holding her neck - the fact was he did it, and continued to do it when the consequences of doing so should have been clear.
 
veggiefan said:
It is from The Sun, you know!

Agreed! I have just read the Sun article and frankly it is a rubbish sensationalist paper which mostly bases stories on entertainment value than fact. I'd rathe read the Daily Mail and thats saying something! :blushing:

Can I ask all fellow sleuthers opinions on the Judge's decision not to allow the Jury to hear the Internet usage of VT. Myself and my husband are massively disagreeing ( as always haha). I think they should have known, I felt strongly that the image of the girl who looked like JY, wearing the same clothes etc was VERY important to the case. My husband disagrees though and thinks that people's Internet activity could damn a lot of innocent people, if further cases allow information like this to be accessible throughout trials.

As much as I hate agreeing with the hubby. I can see to a point why the Judge did not allow the evidence to be made public at the time. It also leads me to wonder what other information we did not know about!
Click to expand...
 
otto said:
My understanding is that additional investigations relate to possible crimes in other areas, specifically the Netherlands and the US. I don't see that possible crimes in those countries would be grounds to refuse a transfer to a prison in the Netherlands. VT comes from a family of well educated people that will use the law to arrange a transfer, and his mother's health gives a very strong argument for the transfer.

I was thinking yesterday about the fact that he is 10 years younger than his next sibling. He was described as a latecomer to the family. Since his mother is in her 70s, he came along when she was around the age of 40. He was described by the neighbour as a loner, an introvert and often by himself. With four older children (teenagers) when he came along, he may have been overly coddled (by three big sisters) and also somewhat neglected because of a busy household. It reminds me of Scott Peterson ... also the youngest, coddled by older siblings, a loner, neglected through his early childhood. I believe that there is a recipe for the making of people like VT that relates to early childhood.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of what Aneurin enlightened me about at #1033

It's an offence under s63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 " to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image" such as one that depicts "an act which threatens a person's life".

Well, possession of extreme pornographic images is a crime. The police are obliged to investigate crime when they become aware of it. Presumably they were unable to do so previously for fear of prejudicing the trial that has just concluded.
 
veggiefan said:
It is from The Sun, you know!

The picture of the cushy Dutch jail is deliberately misleading. It's actually the UN Detention Centre in The Hague. Here's the source of the photo:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7521347.stm

Unless VT has also committed international war crimes, there's no chance of him being housed in a UN facility!
Click to expand...

Granted the picture is misleading then, but I think it's a given that he would have a cushtier life in his homeland, if only because as I've said before, it offers him the opportunity to be over indulged by his family, and enables him to cry into his mommies bosom about his suffering due to this accident that he really didn't mean to happen.

I hope his and his families efforts are thwarted at every effort.

Even in his time of deep, traumatic grief Mr Yeates is prepared to show compassion for TM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...tined-to-kill-says-Joanna-Yeatess-father.html

The Tabak's silence speaks volumes.
 
Cadfael said:
veggiefan said:
It is from The Sun, you know!

Agreed! I have just read the Sun article and frankly it is a rubbish sensationalist paper which mostly bases stories on entertainment value than fact. I'd rathe read the Daily Mail and thats saying something! :blushing:

Can I ask all fellow sleuthers opinions on the Judge's decision not to allow the Jury to hear the Internet usage of VT. Myself and my husband are massively disagreeing ( as always haha). I think they should have known, I felt strongly that the image of the girl who looked like JY, wearing the same clothes etc was VERY important to the case. My husband disagrees though and thinks that people's Internet activity could damn a lot of innocent people, if further cases allow information like this to be accessible throughout trials.

As much as I hate agreeing with the hubby. I can see to a point why the Judge did not allow the evidence to be made public at the time. It also leads me to wonder what other information we did not know about!
Click to expand...

I think in this particular case, the evidence of this extra-curricular interest of VT's is directly relevant to the issue of whether the crime was murder or manslaughter. It throws light on the issue of intent. Without that evidence, the jury might have believed that he put his hands around her neck to stop her from screaming. With that evidence, it would seem more than likely that he did it for a sexual reason. That being the case, he had to carry on until she died. He was never intending just to throttle her for a few seconds to get his sexual thrill, then stop. Once he laid hands on her throat, he knew he would have to carry on until he she was dead.

Therefore, withholding that evidence did not allow the jury to see clearly that he had intent to kill.
Click to expand...
 
Cadfael said:
veggiefan said:
It is from The Sun, you know!

Agreed! I have just read the Sun article and frankly it is a rubbish sensationalist paper which mostly bases stories on entertainment value than fact. I'd rathe read the Daily Mail and thats saying something! :blushing:

Can I ask all fellow sleuthers opinions on the Judge's decision not to allow the Jury to hear the Internet usage of VT. Myself and my husband are massively disagreeing ( as always haha). I think they should have known, I felt strongly that the image of the girl who looked like JY, wearing the same clothes etc was VERY important to the case. My husband disagrees though and thinks that people's Internet activity could damn a lot of innocent people, if further cases allow information like this to be accessible throughout trials.

As much as I hate agreeing with the hubby. I can see to a point why the Judge did not allow the evidence to be made public at the time. It also leads me to wonder what other information we did not know about!
Click to expand...

It's the whole cause and effect thing - and proving that looking at such images caused VT to behave in this manner. It couldn't be proved, and as other posters have mentioned, allowing this material into evidence may have given VT's defence team grounds for appeal. Nobody would have wanted that. I think the judge was right to act as he did and exclude it to ensure a scrupulously fair trial.
Click to expand...
 
Sammyme said:
Do you happen to know what ITA means in the post you were responding to?

Speaking of juries, a former lawyer said that he used to describe the jury as twelve people of average ignorance. :floorlaugh:
Click to expand...

Well I know now what ITA means, what I don't understand is why you felt you had to ask in the first place.

:innocent:
 
Sammyme said:
Do you happen to know what ITA means in the post you were responding to?

Speaking of juries, a former lawyer said that he used to describe the jury as twelve people of average ignorance. :floorlaugh:
Click to expand...

Cherwell said:
I don't think it's as clear-cut as that. Unless he'd had a rock-solid alibi (which it now appears he did not) I doubt that he would have been conclusively ruled out. He simply wasn't around in the early days of the investigation, having gone away for Xmas and New Year. I'm sure they would have had a closer look at him once he returned anyway.



I totally agree?
Click to expand...


Thanks Cherwell, but I just looked it up. I can't see why Sammyme asked me the question.
 
The most recent mug shot of VT bothers me, especially when compared to the previous photos.

It's like he's not there anymore, like he's disconnected from the world and his situation. I wouldn't be surprised if some form of breakdown follows and he is certified insane. I feel this is not the first crime he will connected to, either in the UK or abroad.
 
Cadfael said:
veggiefan said:
It is from The Sun, you know!

Agreed! I have just read the Sun article and frankly it is a rubbish sensationalist paper which mostly bases stories on entertainment value than fact. I'd rathe read the Daily Mail and thats saying something! :blushing:

Can I ask all fellow sleuthers opinions on the Judge's decision not to allow the Jury to hear the Internet usage of VT. Myself and my husband are massively disagreeing ( as always haha). I think they should have known, I felt strongly that the image of the girl who looked like JY, wearing the same clothes etc was VERY important to the case. My husband disagrees though and thinks that people's Internet activity could damn a lot of innocent people, if further cases allow information like this to be accessible throughout trials.

As much as I hate agreeing with the hubby. I can see to a point why the Judge did not allow the evidence to be made public at the time. It also leads me to wonder what other information we did not know about!
Click to expand...

With hindsight, it now looks like the right decision, although if it had gone to a hung jury/mistrial then it would have looked quite differently!

The main thing it would have added to the trial is that it would have strongly suggested Tabak's explanation of events was dishonest, most importantly his 'innocent' explanation of holding her throat purely to stop her screaming.

However, it wouldn't have proved he intended to kill her (in fact you could argue that assuming that he's not been watching snuff movies, his viewing of *advertiser censored* in which women are strangled/choked but not killed could - perversely - add weight to an argument that he didn't anticipate the result of his actions to be death)

I think as I eventually realised myself, the motive is a distraction to the main issue which is that he was there, witness to the impact of his literally squeezing the life out of her - regardless of why he started, he should have stopped before she was killed, and that makes it murder.
Click to expand...
 
Sammyme said:
Thanks, Cherwell. I suppose it could be. Could be a lot of things, though.
Click to expand...

Ha Ha Sammyme, I thought you were being sarcastic at my ignorance. I didn't realise that you were genuinely asking me what ITA meant.
Apologies.
 
brownbread said:
Cadfael said:
With hindsight, it now looks like the right decision, although if it had gone to a hung jury/mistrial then it would have looked quite differently!

The main thing it would have added to the trial is that it would have strongly suggested Tabak's explanation of events was dishonest, most importantly his 'innocent' explanation of holding her throat purely to stop her screaming.

However, it wouldn't have proved he intended to kill her (in fact you could argue that assuming that he's not been watching snuff movies, his viewing of *advertiser censored* in which women are strangled/choked but not killed could - perversely - add weight to an argument that he didn't anticipate the result of his actions to be death)

I think as I eventually realised myself, the motive is a distraction to the main issue which is that he was there, witness to the impact of his literally squeezing the life out of her - regardless of why he started, he should have stopped before she was killed, and that makes it murder.
Click to expand...

I do think that is an excellent point and was something I was thinking about yesterday....with this information it does point to it being a failed rape attempt, resulting in murder. As you say the films were not 'snuff' which suggests the women in these videos were dominated and strangled during sex BUT were not killed.

The dishonesty aspect bugs me greatly though, I believed he was a socially inept man with great inexperience of women. In hindsight this was total baloney anyway as he had a steady girlfriend, a full time job, friends, so he was hardly a tragic lonely figure. ( which I ACTUALLY believed he was during the trial!)

His penchant for this type of *advertiser censored* doesn;t instantly make him or the millions of other people who regularly watch these sites, murderers. I think most people can differentiate between a movie ( *advertiser censored* or otherwise) and the real world. It is this fact which I believe makes him highly dangerous.
Click to expand...
 
brownbread said:
I was really struggling myself to decide what my verdict would have been had I been on the jury, I was erring towards manslaughter, but on the morning the jury reached their verdict I had sudden clarity about it - I just didn't see how anyone could hold another person's throat like that and not be aware of the consequences of what they were doing.

Like others I perhaps felt I wasn't aware that you could strangle someone in as little as 15-20 seconds. Maybe VT wasn't aware either - but the fact was he was there, holding her throat, he could SEE what was happening, SEE her distress and he didn't stop.

Looking back at the judge's directions to the jury, his meaning now is as clear as day. Perhaps it was a risk not allowing the evidence about VT's interests in violent *advertiser censored*, and choking, but at the end of the day it wasn't really relevant: it didn't matter WHY he was holding her neck - the fact was he did it, and continued to do it when the consequences of doing so should have been clear.
Click to expand...

I was also struggling, every scenario I could think of, and everyone else's scenario could not convince me one way or another.
I was totally baffled.
It was the judge's summing up that finally did it.
 
For some reason my laptop ( or quite possibly me) cannot grasp the notion of quoting today, so apologies Brownbread for your quote coming up as mine!

:waitasec:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 178 more.
Total: 2,049 (members: 179, guests: 1,870)

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
1,870
Total visitors
2,049
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,826
Messages
18,100,022
Members
230,933
Latest member
anyclimate3010
Back
Top