GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #13

[whiterum]

Veggiefan, thanks.

VT's plea of manslaughter was denied and rejected by the Crown. It was not accepted, so they're prosecuting him, not on m/s but on Murder. Therefore that plea is not "in", so to speak. He faces varying charges ... all of murder. He may have said it was someone else; he may have said "I'm not guilty" ... the Crown are pursuing Murder Charges against him - they have disregarded his plea totally.

I think the evidence is immense in this case - and I think he's in for a lot longer than may be anticipated - but then that's JMHO.

Totally agree, the CPS will have carefully studied all the evidence gathered by the police. They have the final say as to whether the charge of murder is appropriate in this case. They have decided that the evidence against him warrants a trial for murder and must be confident that he will be convicted of such by a jury.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Only the judge can decide, although I should think that a charge of false imprisonment might well stick, given that he wasn't charged with any crime at all.

To put it bluntly, if someone was killed in a property close to you, would you be happy to have been imprisoned, just because you lived nearby?

I suspect that A&S were getting desperate to show some progress at the time CJ was arrested (remember that the case was about to go for review due to lack of progress), so they took a pot-shot, perhaps encouraged by the outrageous suggestions about CJ in the press. They made a bad mistake. CJ is a clever man, and not without funds, and I'm sure that he'll make the police as well as the tabloids pay for ruining his reputation - as, indeed, I think he should.

But he wasn't imprisoned was he and they had ample chance to release him from bail when VT was charged , but they stuck to their guns and would not release him. I know you feel he is innocent ,but I would like to know what the police really had on him and remember VT was so sure he was going to get away with it that he came back to England he couldn't be sure that CJ being on bail was definitely going to be charged, unless he knew something else that we don't. Corruption is rife in all departments I think there are many cases that have been glossed over its not what you have done but who you know if you get my drift. But if it is genuine then of course he should sue but unfortunately I am afraid I have doubts , remember the police always thought others were involved.

 

[Cherwell]

But he wasn't imprisoned was he

Technically he was, in the sense that from the moment he was arrested up to the point when he was released without charge, he was not free to go.

"False imprisonment" in legal terms is "restraint of a person in a bounded area without justification or consent". It doesn't mean actually being in a prison.

 

[kINGFISHER]

When you can't legally be detained after being arrested
If you have been legally arrested, your arrest can become illegal if:
• there is no longer any reason for keeping you under arrest;
• you aren't charged even though there is enough evidence to charge you; or
• the police don't follow the rules set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which say when and how often they should look at whether you should continue to be detained.
•
Why would the police risk this if they did not have a reason to hold him.

You aren't charged even though there is enough evidence to charge you,
What does this mean exactly. Surprised he didn't take action sooner if these are his rights.

 

[notsure]

Perhaps what they had on the LL was nothing more than a series of clues that led them to believe it must be him: the fact that there was no break-in and no sign of a struggle; the fact that they knew JY had arrived home, left her things there and was therefore probably killed by someone who lived in the house and wanted to remove her from the scene; the fact that he as the LL had the best opportunity of access and moving around unsuspected; and then what he said to the neighbours, which seemed to be deliberately misleading. Perhaps his manner under questioning also had something to do with it. The fact that he's not your average guy probably didn't help him. Probably no concrete evidence at all.

I'm just guessing, of course.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Perhaps what they had on the LL was nothing more than a series of clues that led them to believe it must be him: the fact that there was no break-in and no sign of a struggle; the fact that they knew JY had arrived home, left her things there and was therefore probably killed by someone who lived in the house and wanted to remove her from the scene; the fact that he as the LL had the best opportunity of access and moving around unsuspected; and then what he said to the neighbours, which seemed to be deliberately misleading. Perhaps his manner under questioning also had something to do with it. The fact that he's not your average guy probably didn't help him. Probably no concrete evidence at all.

I'm just guessing, of course.

Have to wait and see if the Police challenge or comment. Ultimately the claim would be against Chief constable of AS, Colin Port wouldn't it.

 

[veggiefan]

I know you feel he is innocent, but I would like to know what the police really had on him ... But if it is genuine then of course he should sue but unfortunately I am afraid I have doubts, remember the police always thought others were involved.

In last Sunday's Guardian, a close friend of CJ is quoted as saying "He was arrested completely falsely; there was no evidence against him."

But the real test is that CJ is willing to go to court (with a team of very expensive lawyers). I very much doubt that he would risk losing tens of thousands of pounds if he was not totally confident of success.

However, the police usually try to make an out-of-court settlement in these type of cases (of which there are many every year) as that tends to be cheaper than facing the punitive damages that judges tend to award. They may also want to keep CJ's case out of court for fear of revealing evidence that could prejudice VT's trial. Apparently CJ could be summoned as a witness in the latter, although this has not yet been decided according to the same Guardian report.

 

[kINGFISHER]

His claim apparently is he only took the rent so he would not be needed as a witness, hmm. Have to see if the prosecution want him or will his expensive solicitors battle for him not to be called to court, I wonder.

 

[kINGFISHER]

What would be interesting if Jos parents, now CJ is suing and not charged with murder, will back up opinion and feel sorry for CJ and also think he has been badly treated wrongly arrested and not involved.

 

[notsure]

What would be interesting if Jos parents, now CJ is suing and not charged with murder, will back up opinion and feel sorry for CJ and also think he has been badly treated wrongly arrested and not involved.

Previously they stated that they only knew what the general public knew, so I don't think they would have any more information about him. They will be too wrapped up in trying their best to deal with their bereavement to do much speculating, I imagine. I think they will feel some relief that they know that the person who killed their beloved child has been caught.

 

[bees]

What would be interesting if Jos parents, now CJ is suing and not charged with murder, will back up opinion and feel sorry for CJ and also think he has been badly treated wrongly arrested and not involved.

I think it's very likely they will feel sorry for him but I doubt they'll say anything publicly unless they get caught making an 'off the cuff' comment to a journalist who springs a question on them.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

I'm afraid you're wrong. The option of manslaughter has only been rejected by the prosecution. The court has no say in the charges that are brought until after the evidence has been heard. At that point, the judge can direct the jury on points of law as he sees fit. This could include throwing the entire case out of court for lack of plausible evidence to directing the jury to consider a lesser charge such as manslaughter

Maybe we're a bit behind the times? A poster on another forum very kindly submitted the following ... which is most satisfying and encouraging news. I say "another poster" as I find it a little unethical to read the thoughts and opinions of others then zoom over to another site ... and post as if that was their (or this case my) suggestion, thought or idea - just sayin, forum etiquette unwritten rules...

Bold is mine.

The double jeopardy law in the UK was scrapped in 2005. This means that someone CAN be charged with the same crime again, having been previously acquitted.

Here is a link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4406129.stm

Now I know that VT was never actually charged with manslaughter, but offered his guilty plea of his own accord. So, even if he was found not guilty of murder at his trial in October, he could be found guilty of manslaughter. Furthermore, he could be charged with the murder of JY for a second time if new evidence came to light.

I think I understand British Law far better now ... erm ... as I'd been under the impression previously.

Thanks all the same! Have a great weekend, all.

Polk

 

[Cherwell]

Well, I for one knew that double jeopardy no longer applies, and that someone who has been acquitted can now be tried again on the same charge.

As the defendant in this case has already admitted manslaughter, it's unlikely to have any relevance here though.

 

[veggiefan]

Maybe we're a bit behind the times? A poster on another forum very kindly submitted the following ...
The double jeopardy law in the UK was scrapped in 2005. This means that someone CAN be charged with the same crime again, having been previously acquitted.

Most people in the UK are probably aware of that as it has had much publicity here (although the double jeopardy law was only scrapped in England and Wales - Scotland still has it, but not for much longer). However, as I explain below, this is not relevant in VT's trial.

Now I know that VT was never actually charged with manslaughter, but offered his guilty plea of his own accord. So, even if he was found not guilty of murder at his trial in October, he could be found guilty of manslaughter.

Yes. As I've explained, his defence team will almost certainly ask the jury to consider the lesser charge of manslaughter, while the prosecution will press for a verdict on the charge of murder with which he has been indited (as happened in the trial of Brian Buckley for the killing of his partner last year). The judge will direct the jury on whether they can legally consider a manslaughter charge after hearing the evidence.

Furthermore, he could be charged with the murder of JY for a second time if new evidence came to light.[/I]

No, I'm afraid that bit's wrong. The Criminal Justice Act that removed the double jeopardy rule, makes it clear that VT would have to be acquitted in October (or in a subsequent appeal) before there could be another trial for the same offence. That won't happen, because he has already confessed to manslaughter. So, even if new evidence comes to light, there cannot be a re-trial in this case as there is no doubt that VT will be sentenced for the killing of JY at the end of his trial, whether it is for murder or for manslaughter.

I think I understand British Law far better now ... erm ... as I'd been under the impression previously.

Sympathies. It's difficult enough to understand all of the details of the law in one's own country, let alone trying to understand the differences in other countries.

Mrs V and I had a Tesco Finest mozzarella, tomato and basil pesto pizza last night. It's our favourite pizza by a long way, but I can never eat one now without thinking of poor JY. Do others find the same, or am I just being sentimental?

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Veggiefan. You do make me laugh out LOUD. Holding up the flag; falling on my sword - allowing you to dictate LOL ... I *completely forgot* the double jeopardy law was scrapped. Probably as I've not lived in UK for many a year!

1. Erm ... assumption. Y'see ... I'm actually very British. FULL British - not through any other means other than my full genealogy ... passport, right to abode, the works. Family history traced back 500 years. So instead of sympathy - I think it's empathy, lol. Brit govt far too darn soft on criminals ... look where it's got us!

2. Duh-uh ... *of course* he'd have to be acquitted first before a new charge could be brought in. At the end of the day, the man is guilty. J's dead because of him: he's confessed/admitted it. Tactics as to "accident" just to clear his butt save his own skin. He did "nothing" to help Jo. Call 999? Render assistance? CPR? Come forward? Own up when CJ was arrested (his, er, friend & neighbour???). One trusts he's advised what he did with that pesky pizza and the sock ... and *maybe* ... just maybe ... Jo's necklace! Hang him high.

3. His manslaughter plea has been rejected by the crown. It is not part of the proceedings. What the jury decide is as directed by the judge.

The rest - as you will... not here to take on cauliflower and celery, lol.

(Tho one little teeny parting hint: rather try to avoid buying the same pizza as was Jo's favorite, too, if it disturbs or saddens the pleasure of one of life's essential needs: eating Or realise that ... life goes on and enjoy it for the goodness it yields. Have a great one, Veg)

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Previously they stated that they only knew what the general public knew, so I don't think they would have any more information about him. They will be too wrapped up in trying their best to deal with their bereavement to do much speculating, I imagine. I think they will feel some relief that they know that the person who killed their beloved child has been caught.

Agree whole-heartedly with you, notsure! You sound a very caring and fair person, btw ... nice to encounter... just sayin.

PS: though I don't live there anymore (lived in Coleshill & Princess Risborough amid "The Greens", Bucks, as a child) - extended family moved to and remain in the West Country - namely Bath & Bristol. With many friends, too... It's where "we go" when we go back to visit. Oh - and of course taking in a good slice of Scotland; hubby's ancestral regions, lol...

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

I think it's very likely they will feel sorry for him but I doubt they'll say anything publicly unless they get caught making an 'off the cuff' comment to a journalist who springs a question on them.

bees, I think you're spot on , bold above. And with the press under the spotlight for the way CJ's life and soul was degraded ... along with latest lawsuits filed from every which angle ... I suggest or at least assume - that the press will lay off indiscriminate reporting.

The press and storytellers out there stop at nothing. For instance - and O/T so I apologise in advance ... these "gruesome Di pics" in that new Cannes documentary by Lily Allen's father. That ... is just absolutely diabolical; insensitive! There is *nothing* IMO and it appears majority of the public ... that supports "public interest" in my opinion. Bottom line: it is all about money and fame. It is atrocious. The media named and shamed CJ. Lynch-mobbed him, actually. At the time of his arrest, I recall on another site, someone having a "go" at me when, after his release, I wrote "he clearly did not do this ...". Bingo.

My ... and yes a couple of others on that site ... months-long campaign supporting Tabak's guilt saw equal onslaught of cut-throats supporting Tabak. Never moved in my theory and belief. Still haven't. He stalked her, she caught him - he killed her to silence his testimony. Then hid, covered, distanced and lied to save his own butt.

And up until 5th May when the killer ..... confessed. :gasp:

There were (are) *way* too many screamingly obvious reasons - but all of that was my and remains - my opinion only. Son of a ..... !@#$% .... !

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

His claim apparently is he only took the rent so he would not be needed as a witness, hmm. Have to see if the prosecution want him or will his expensive solicitors battle for him not to be called to court, I wonder.

kINGFISHER - I do so enjoy your concise one / two liners. Indeed, I concur; CJ may indeed be a witness - and if he does not want to - yet pros believe he must testify - then I assume he'd be subpoenaed. Hostile witness? Well, we have one man *not* very happy with police and the media. both elements he resents intensely, judging by the lawsuits flying over our heads. However, and regardless of Mr. J's flambouyant image (nothing wrong with that!) I suspect he has a very solid and moral fabric - he's very intelligent. He knows full-well a family have lost their daughter and that family did not blame or judge him, ever. So ... he might, irrespective of what eh thinks of anyone else ... go forward as a matter of principle to Jo's family.

Just my take ... perhaps because that's what I'd do ...

Best,

Polk

 

[kINGFISHER]

kINGFISHER - I do so enjoy your concise one / two liners. Indeed, I concur; CJ may indeed be a witness - and if he does not want to - yet pros believe he must testify - then I assume he'd be subpoenaed. Hostile witness? Well, we have one man *not* very happy with police and the media. both elements he resents intensely, judging by the lawsuits flying over our heads. However, and regardless of Mr. J's flambouyant image (nothing wrong with that!) I suspect he has a very solid and moral fabric - he's very intelligent. He knows full-well a family have lost their daughter and that family did not blame or judge him, ever. So ... he might, irrespective of what eh thinks of anyone else ... go forward as a matter of principle to Jo's family.

Just my take ... perhaps because that's what I'd do ...



Best,

Polk

QUOTE
He knows full-well a family have lost their daughter and that family did not blame or judge him, ever.

I don't know that for sure, do you ,but let's hope that's the case There you are another one liner, just for you.http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[veggiefan]

Y'see ... I'm actually very British.

My apologies. It was when you started writing about first and second degree murder that I assumed you must be American.

His manslaughter plea has been rejected by the crown. It is not part of the proceedings.

The plea has been rejected by the prosecution - it's a bit confusing to say "rejected by the crown" because we are referring to a crown court, and the judge who presides in that court has certainly not rejected the plea.

I'm sorry to seem to correct you again, but VT's plea of guilty to manslaughter is already part of the proceedings and will continue to be.

It means that the prosecution do not have to prove that he killed JY - they now merely have to prove that he intended to kill her.

Also, under Section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act, it is made clear that "On an indictment for murder a person found not guilty of murder may be found guilty of manslaughter".

So the question of manslaughter will not only be part of the proceedings, but may well form the major part of the proceedings now that VT has admitted to the killing. Having heard the evidence, the judge can either direct the jury to consider the charge of manslaughter instead of murder, if evidence for the latter is weak, or he can direct them to consider the charge of manslaughter if they reach a "not guilty" verdict on the charge of murder. There is precedent for both these options in English law.