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

[whiterum]

If Jo was strangled in a sudden headlock scenario, then the saliva found on her breasts, stomach and jeans would most likely have been deposited on her bare skin after her death.

 

[wfgodot]

Good Independent article on the contempt issue:

---
I must admit that my own feelings are contradictory. At the time, I strongly felt that Mr Jefferies had been unfairly treated by some newspapers.

He may well have a robust civil case against some or all of them. As a wholly innocent man, he must have been driven half-mad by some of the things that were written about him. I question whether he could have had a fair trial.

But whether it is reasonable to find two newspapers guilty of criminal behaviour in these circumstances I wonder. We will see what happens in court. Mr Grieve will argue that The Sun and the Mirror interfered with the processes of justice.

Maybe they did, but it is hard to define the harm done. I presume his real intention is to warn off these and other newspapers from behaving in such a way in similar cases.
---

the rest here: Contempt of court case raises difficult issues by Stephen Glover

 

[Robin Hood]

I think we should all remember that VT has pleaded not guilty to murder. It may be that some of us doubt that, but the Attorney General has already warned that "We need to avoid a situation where trials cannot take place or are prejudiced as a result of irrelevant or improper material being published, whether in print form or on the internet".

VT has only pleaded guilty to manslaughter, which is basically accidental killing, such as can happen if a car driver hits a cyclist and the cyclist dies.

The prosecution have not accepted this plea, but it is up to the jury to decide whether the act was manslaughter or murder - it is not up to us here to do that.

If I killed somebody 'accidentally' my instinct would be to 999 without thought, I certainly wouldn't dispose of the person and pretend I wasn't there and go on some crusade to con the press, the public and uncle tom cobly that It wasn't me. My God, it's a persons life not a soap opera, VT gave up any right morally to a trail by his peers when he didn't summon help.
This man will be judged not only in court but by a higher being (if he believes). I understand the need of some self preservation but VT went to some lenghts to distract the law to his deed.
He could have been liberal with the truth but he decided to not acknowledge Jo's death, so that in my mind shows some sort of dark side, bring the court case on....

 

[kemo]

In the US, there is a clear distinction between Voluntary Manslaughter and Involuntary Manslaughter. The former being wreckless behavior resulting in death (such as drunk driving) with a typical prison term of 3 to 5 years. The later being deliberate behavior, not intending to kill, and resulting in death (such as a physical assault resulting in death) with a prison term typical 10 to 15 years or more. I would imagine in the UK, the same distinction would apply.

Assuming things work pretty much like they would in the US; a Voluntary Manslaughter conviction would still represent a very long sentence but would afford a chance of release before VT is an old man. Involuntary Manslaughter, on the other hand, would give him a chance do his time and resume his life. It would be one hell of a challenge for the attorney.

I think it all comes down to what the probable sentence would be. Does he want to roll the dice or play it safe?

 

[veggiefan]

What do you mean "not up to us here" to decide or discuss?

Please don't misquote me. I said that it will not be up to us here who will decide whether the act was murder or manslaughter. I said nothing about not discussing this issue.

So for it to be inferred I (others) have "no right" to opine here ... well ... I do differ on that.

Having misquoted me once, you now repeat the claim that I said this matter should not be discussed. I said no such thing. I merely pointed out that we should not assume that VT is a murderer until we know what facts he will produce to support his not guilty plea. Remember that we have only heard one side of the case so far.

I suspect there is an awful lot we still don't know. Even the assumption that JY was strangled may not necessarily turn out to be true. The police pathologist couldn't initially determine a cause of death, and it is not impossible that the defence pathologist may have reached a different view (you may recall that the police pathologist was found to have reached the wrong conclusion in the death of Ian Tomlinson only a few weeks ago, and that didn't involve the extra complication of a body that had been frozen).

I am keeping an open mind on whether it could have been murder or manslaughter until I've heard VT's defence. But I certainly didn't say that this should not be discussed.

 

[veggiefan]

In the US, there is a clear distinction between Voluntary Manslaughter and Involuntary Manslaughter. The former being wreckless behavior resulting in death (such as drunk driving) with a typical prison term of 3 to 5 years. The later being deliberate behavior, not intending to kill, and resulting in death (such as a physical assault resulting in death) with a prison term typical 10 to 15 years or more. I would imagine in the UK, the same distinction would apply.

Assuming things work pretty much like they would in the US; a Voluntary Manslaughter conviction would still represent a very long sentence but would afford a chance of release before VT is an old man. Involuntary Manslaughter, on the other hand, would give him a chance do his time and resume his life. It would be one hell of a challenge for the attorney.

I think it all comes down to what the probable sentence would be. Does he want to roll the dice or play it safe?

In the UK, murder and manslaughter both carry a maximum term of life imprisonment, but sentences for manslaughter are generally shorter - sometimes much shorter. It all depends on the circumstances. The Court of Appeal has said that involuntary manslaughter covers the widest band of sentencing for any offence. Pleading guilty to manslaughter does not, in itself, guarantee a shorter sentence.

 

[Chester]

In the UK, murder and manslaughter both carry a maximum term of life imprisonment, but sentences for manslaughter are generally shorter - sometimes much shorter. It all depends on the circumstances. The Court of Appeal has said that involuntary manslaughter covers the widest band of sentencing for any offence. Pleading guilty to manslaughter does not, in itself, guarantee a shorter sentence.

Totally agree in both cases the likely recommendation for minimum time served is likely to be 15 years. In the past sentences for manslaughter have tended to be shorter but current guidelines are attempting to reduce that gap in cases where there is little difference to murder.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Please don't misquote me. I said that it will not be up to us here who will decide whether the act was murder or manslaughter. I said nothing about not discussing this issue.



Having misquoted me once, you now repeat the claim that I said this matter should not be discussed. I said no such thing. I merely pointed out that we should not assume that VT is a murderer until we know what facts he will produce to support his not guilty plea. Remember that we have only heard one side of the case so far.

I suspect there is an awful lot we still don't know. Even the assumption that JY was strangled may not necessarily turn out to be true. The police pathologist couldn't initially determine a cause of death, and it is not impossible that the defence pathologist may have reached a different view (you may recall that the police pathologist was found to have reached the wrong conclusion in the death of Ian Tomlinson only a few weeks ago, and that didn't involve the extra complication of a body that had been frozen).

I am keeping an open mind on whether it could have been murder or manslaughter until I've heard VT's defence. But I certainly didn't say that this should not be discussed.

I see your point. you. Understood and thank you for that. What the court will actually decide ... is if he is guilty of Murder 1. That the judge proposes a lesser charge is yet to be determined. Whether 2nd Degree, Manslaughter, recklessness - whatever. Currently, he faces trial on straightforward ... MURDER charges.

However, I believe in my own opinion that VT is guilty of Murder 1 and this was never ... an accident. I support the prosecution's case 100%. I believe his m/s plea was self-serving and self-preservation - and the pros is having nothing to do with it.

His actions before and after are going to be exceptionally crucial to those charges - outside of the moment of death. What I think is going on here is that those following m/s are stopping right there. Forgetting this has been *rejected*. So the charge IS, by the Crown ... Murder 1. It is, like it or lump it what VT is charged with. There are not 2 sets of charges. The Crown has charged him with the murder of Joanna Yeates,

Strangling or choking someone to death ... defines there is a point you stopped. VT stopped - when Jo went limp. When she was dead/ Accident? Did he call for help as many have proffered? No ... he allowed CJ's life to become what it is today ... through sheer selfishness. Undeniable. Did he act concerned? Never. All those stating "he was perfectly normal" ... his colleagues family, friends all said "our lovely Vincent - was perfectly normal..". Even while CJ was in jail and he was under the mistletoe at New Year. Happy. Could *you* act that way? Would you? Not as if he was sleep-walking, went around and killed JO, then woke up all the better for wear and carried on life *as if he'd never met her* ... which is in fact what he said. Didn't know Jo. Right? Right. No accident, IMHO.

The Crown clearly has very strong evidence that will, IMO, lead to his conviction. Destroying Jo, her family's lives ... his own family's life outside of his own is 100% the responsibility of VT. No-one else.

If, as bees correctly identified when he/she wrote along the lines of ... manslaughter is running a cyclist over unintentionally ... then the driver WAITS AT HIS CAR ... he doesn't zoom off and knowingly allow a friend to fall for his deed. THAT ... is criminal.

So, just as bail was denied to VT, we could argue endlessly as to why he should have got bail. It's moot. No bail - nothing to discuss. Likewise ... M/s has been *denied* and *rejected*. It is not what he is charged with. He tried to use m/s as a tactic to continue to distance himself from his heinous, malicious ... crime of murder... and save his skin.

It did not work.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

If I killed somebody 'accidentally' my instinct would be to 999 without thought, I certainly wouldn't dispose of the person and pretend I wasn't there and go on some crusade to con the press, the public and uncle tom cobly that It wasn't me. My God, it's a persons life not a soap opera, VT gave up any right morally to a trail by his peers when he didn't summon help.
This man will be judged not only in court but by a higher being (if he believes). I understand the need of some self preservation but VT went to some lenghts to distract the law to his deed.
He could have been liberal with the truth but he decided to not acknowledge Jo's death, so that in my mind shows some sort of dark side, bring the court case on....

Oh absolutely, Robin Hood :clap: Bring it on! Tho I must say I highly doubt this man believes in God or higher judgment. He does not have emotions - if he did, how could he have continued to throttle the life out of Jo? Initial rage, yes. But Jo was no weakling (rowing and her arm-wrestling). JO's mum added Jo's arm wrestling for a reason. Indicating to the world that her daughter would have fought back. She would have cried ou NO! Stop it. And when he didn't - she screamed "Help Me!!!".

Who helped her? Tabak? because he didn't mean to kill her? No. Not at all. He needed Jo dead to save his butt. And maybe he even thought he'd gotten away with it. Thought he was clever to get rid of everything from Canynge Road. He didn't.

Heinous crime. Absolutely diabolical ... if Halliwell got people punching his prison van door - VT deserves the same wrath, IMO. Ruined Jo's family Christmas forever (and his own family Xmas). Did he stop to think about them? No, because he was out to hide this crime. He failed...

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

If Jo was strangled in a sudden headlock scenario, then the saliva found on her breasts, stomach and jeans would most likely have been deposited on her bare skin after her death.

Accurate summary, I think, whiterum. That much we may surmise. Lewd, lascivious and lecherous tampering with a body post-death. Then dumps her on an arbitrary curbside to freeze over. He was probably trying to get Jo over that quarry wall - so she'd never be found and he could live "a normal life" (until the next time).

However, when he returned to finish off, that "higher being" ordered Mother Nature to stop VT from doing as much and Jo was hidden in the snow. He couldn't find the exact spot he left her and could not risk being seen "looking for something under the snow". Jo's spirit as I've written before, froze him out of doing that. He had no option but to hope for the best. For the 2nd time in a week (after Jo caught him doing whatever... and his decision to kill her so as not to be found out ... ).

JMHO

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Putting this "out there" ... I'll wager here they found a "trophy" in and among VT's belongings. By saying he never knew Jo (lies) it will be *very* difficult for him to explain how he got it. Accidentally killing someone (not) does not involve robbing them for a keepsake. Intent, intent, intent!

Just my sneakin suspicion.

Edited to Add: Police back in early stages wondered if Jo surprised a prowler. I think she did - and that prowler was VT doing something awful. He had to kill jo rather than face the sexual offender's register - that would have ruined his life. He needed his secret and Jo's testimony quiet forever. JMHO - but imagine what that will do to the sentencing? The severity of the charges on his rap-sheet will be immense here ..... and the case/s against him won't make him the "easy get out of jail in 20 years".

Murder One - that's what he is charged with.

 

[veggiefan]

I see your point. you. Understood and thank you for that. What the court will actually decide ... is if he is guilty of Murder 1. That the judge proposes a lesser charge is yet to be determined. Whether 2nd Degree, Manslaughter, recklessness - whatever. Currently, he faces trial on straightforward ... MURDER charges.

Just as a point of information, there is no distinction between first and second degree murder in the UK. The charge is simply "murder".

M/s has been *denied* and *rejected*.[/B]

Not so. VT has pleaded guilty to manslaughter, he has not denied that at all. However, the CPS has successfully pressed for a charge of murder.

Whether or not the judge will direct the jury to consider a manslaughter charge after the evidence has been heard remains to be seen. There are very few defences to an admission of manslaughter - basically they are insanity (which is most unlikely in VT's case), diminished responsibility (which is hard to prove) and provocation (e.g. a furious argument over some work project in which JY seized a knife and VT strangled her in trying to avoid being stabbed - not that I think that is particularly likely). Loss of reason through alcohol or drugs is not a defence.

I would certainly agree that the CPS must have strong evidence to insist on pursuing the murder charge. It will be a long wait until October to see what defence VT comes up with to claim it was manslaughter.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

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.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Just as a point of information, there is no distinction between first and second degree murder in the UK. The charge is simply "murder".



Not so. VT has pleaded guilty to manslaughter, he has not denied that at all. However, the CPS has successfully pressed for a charge of murder.

Whether or not the judge will direct the jury to consider a manslaughter charge after the evidence has been heard remains to be seen. There are very few defences to an admission of manslaughter - basically they are insanity (which is most unlikely in VT's case), diminished responsibility (which is hard to prove) and provocation (e.g. a furious argument over some work project in which JY seized a knife and VT strangled her in trying to avoid being stabbed - not that I think that is particularly likely). Loss of reason through alcohol or drugs is not a defence.

I would certainly agree that the CPS must have strong evidence to insist on pursuing the murder charge. It will be a long wait until October to see what defence VT comes up with to claim it was manslaughter.

Veggiefan, the judge will not direct the jury to manslaughter if he has been charged with Murder - because manslaughter has .... been .... *rejected* ... by the court, already.

See telegraph - this is but one article, although it's about CJ ... this and every article clearly states : manslaughter rejected. There are quite a few articles all over the web regarding this:

Last week Dutch engineer Vincent Tabak, 33, admitted that he killed Yeates, pleading guilty to manslaughter during a brief hearing at the Old Bailey in London.

The Crown Prosecution Service, however, rejected his plea, and Tabak is expected to stand trial for murder in October.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...d-sues-police-over-arrest-for-her-murder.html.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Veggie-fan, on another forum a poster made more sense of this. My argument is, tho, that as manslaughter has been rejected, I take it this is *no longer an option*. I'm not arguing you're wrong - just trying to make head tail of the latest ruling.

This off Wikipedia and it is very interesting reading - especially the act of the kill - which I have made bold below. This is where intent comes in and I think all must concur, Tabak did *none* of the criteria required. He did not seek help, call 999, come forward next day ... and where he dumped Jo and the callous act itself does not go to remorse / manslaughter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law

The definition of the actus reus (Latin for "wrongful act") of murder most usually cited is that by Edward Coke:

"Murder is when a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforthought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wo, or hurt etc. die of the wound or hurt etc.within a year and a day of the same.

It should be noted it is no longer the case that the death of the victim must occur within a year and a day of the crime, according to the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996.
Unlawfully

"Unlawfully" means against law whether civil or criminal. "Malice" is one of the elements which can commonly distinguish a civil wrong (for which the wrongdoer is usually only liable to make financial reparation) from a criminal act (for which the wrongdoer is liable in the matter of murder to imprisonment for life); a death can still be "unlawful" (e.g. one caused by an act of negligence) even if no specific criminal offence is proved.

Kill (causation)
Main article: Causation in English law

At the time of death, the defendant's acts or omissions must be the operating and most substantial cause of death with no novus actus interveniens (Latin for "new act breaking in") to break the chain of causation. Thus, the defendant cannot choose how the victim is to act, nor what personality to have. No matter whether brave or foolish, the defendant must expect the victim to:

try to escape and if he or she dies in that attempt, the chain of causation is not broken; or
try to fight back and so escalate the extent of the violence between them; or
seek medical treatment for the injuries sustained and, even if mistakes are made by the medical staff, this will not break the chain of causation unless the mistakes become the more substantial cause of death.

More at link ...

 

[kINGFISHER]

Mr Jefferies' solicitors, London-based Stokoe Partnership, said in a statement they were acting for him "in relation to a claim for false imprisonment, trespass and breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 against the Avon and Somerset Constabulary".

So does this mean they had nothing on him at all because if they did all the above would have been the natural progression of enquiries, police duty and rights I would have thought. I feel they must have had something to hold him for so long .

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

I think they found Jo's necklace at Aberdeen Road .... when Tabak was still in custody, before he was finally charged. Police purposefully kept info back - b/c they knew what they were looking for.

Could have been the significant item? Sent for soil tests to see if taken in Jo's flat, or after he dumped the body.

HAve a closer look at the Bargain Booze stills of jo. Notice under her neck blurring? Then look at the side shots of her in Tesco... possible necklace.

I wonder - just a theory ... but ... I wonder. Is that the necklace Jo's mum wore to funeral as a final "message".

Originally posted these thoughts on other site earlier last week ...

 

[veggiefan]

Veggiefan, the judge will not direct the jury to manslaughter if he has been charged with Murder - because manslaughter has .... been .... *rejected* ... by the court, already.

Sorry, PolkSalad, but I don't think you understand the UK justice system. The charge of manslaughter had not been rejected by the court, it has been rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service (what I think you'd probably call the State Prosecutor in the USA).

Once the evidence has been heard, an English judge can direct the jury on matters of the law as he sees fit. It is not uncommon for a judge to direct a jury to consider the lesser charge of manslaughter in cases such as dangerous consensual sex in which a person has died as the result of asphyxiation. (I use this only as an example - I have no idea if that will be VT's defence). In such a case, a jury might well return a verdict of "not guilty" to a murder charge - and the accused would then go free. So the judge advises the jury that they can then consider a manslaughter verdict, in which case they might well decide that the accused is guilty.

 

[veggiefan]

My argument is, tho, that as manslaughter has been rejected, I take it this is *no longer an option*.

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

 

[veggiefan]

Mr Jefferies' solicitors, London-based Stokoe Partnership, said in a statement they were acting for him "in relation to a claim for false imprisonment, trespass and breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 against the Avon and Somerset Constabulary".

So does this mean they had nothing on him at all because if they did all the above would have been the natural progression of enquiries, police duty and rights I would have thought. I feel they must have had something to hold him for so long .

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.