GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #14

[wfgodot]

Or perhaps he's a stone-cold killer, this was premeditated, and Jo was his first known victim.

(Just thought I'd throw that in - doesn't seem to have been the case but we need some unreason on the thread!)

 

[notsure]

Or perhaps he's a stone-cold killer, this was premeditated, and Jo was his first known victim.

(Just thought I'd throw that in - doesn't seem to have been the case but we need some unreason on the thread!)

I would be shocked if that turned out to be the case, but as you say, it's possible.

 

[wfgodot]

I would be shocked if that turned out to be the case, but as you say, it's possible.

Me too. I think premeditation would have resulted in a "better" dumping spot for the body in terms of covering up the action.

 

[whiterum]

As I said in another post, there is no "good samaritan" clause in English law.

These are difficult moral questions which the law is unequipped to answer. I cannot see how the details might apply to this case, but (to take an extreme example) ringing the emergency services to report a body that has been dead for days will do nothing to bring it back to life.

I understand your point Veggiefan, with all the scenarios you quoted but
would it be a different matter, if I injure someone whether inadvertently, or in a rage or whatever and because of my action this person appears to have stopped breathing. A rapid response from the emergency services might, just might be able to revive that person with specialist equipment. Failing to contact such services because I wanted to distance myself, or for any other reason, would this not be crime in English Law?

 

[notsure]

Me too. I think premeditation would have resulted in a "better" dumping spot for the body in terms of covering up the action.

Yes, I think his disposal of the body indicates that this very intelligent young man was reduced to blind panic when he realised what he had done. Then he attempted to carry on living a "normal" life. I don't imagine he could have carried on doing that for long.

 

[Cherwell]

How can the prosecution bring new evidence to the defense (1200 pages!) at such a late date?

Probably because the defence lately introduced new material in the form of the "enhanced statement". The prosecution would need to address any new points.

Is TM still standing by her man, I wonder?

Do we know that she ever did? We have never heard or read a word from her.

 

[bijoux]

True, Cherwell, but she did visit him in jail didn't she? Way back when.

 

[Cherwell]

She did, but for all we know she just went to hurl abuse at him.

 

[bees]

True, Cherwell, but she did visit him in jail didn't she? Way back when.

I think that was before he'd admitted killing JY - I don't recall any reports of her visiting him since then, but of course she might have without the press getting wind of it.

 

[whiterum]

Or perhaps he's a stone-cold killer, this was premeditated, and Jo was his first known victim.

(Just thought I'd throw that in - doesn't seem to have been the case but we need some unreason on the thread!)

That thought has crossed my mind and could well be the case, especially if he had taken some kind of trophy from the victim. Many of these killers appear to have the false persona of the fine upstanding individual, as in the case of the BTK Killer, Dennis Rader. He was seemingly a pillar of the community, church elder, good father, good husband, helper of the poor, yet he had been strangling women for years.

 

[wfgodot]

That thought has crossed my mind and could well be the case, especially if he had taken some kind of trophy from the victim. Many of these killers appear to have the false persona of the fine upstanding individual, as in the case of the BTK Killer, Dennis Rader. He was seemingly a pillar of the community, church elder, good father, good husband, helper of the poor, yet he had been strangling women for years.

Ah! BTK. Had friends in Wichita and visited many times during that reign of terror.

One might - by hypothesizing a bit - see the findable location of the body as a bit of staging guaranteed to thumb a nose at the cops in a "catch me if you can, I've left her as a Christmas present"-type of manner. Again, not likely, but....

 

[whiterum]

Ah! BTK. Had friends in Wichita and visited many times during that reign of terror.

One might - by hypothesizing a bit - see the findable location of the body as a bit of staging guaranteed to thumb a nose at the cops in a "catch me if you can, I've left her as a Christmas present"-type of manner. Again, not likely, but....

My goodness, that close, I'm sure your friends were terrified. Who knows what's in the perverted minds of these killers, your hypothesis could be very likely. Sometimes taunting the police like Rader, gives these killers an extra buzz, a feeling of control. Can't wait to hear what evidence the prosecution have got on him, we might all get a shock.

 

[wfgodot]

My goodness, that close, I'm sure your friends were terrified. Who knows what's in the perverted minds of these killers, your hypothesis could be very likely. Sometimes taunting the police like Rader, gives these killers an extra buzz, a feeling of control. Can't wait to hear what evidence the prosecution have got on him, we might all get a shock.

I agree, can't wait to hear the details of this one. VT seemed pretty eager to explain it all away in the plea bargain bid. Prosecution equally eager to try the case. Might say much.

(I grew up a couple hours from Wichita - one could feel a bit of that "city under siege" mentality, although, being in our 20s and at the time single males, it didn't seem to affect us directly. Certainly was a topic of conversation though. I do remember scaring the hell out of a pal who lived in a third floor walk-up in a bad neighborhood by arriving unannounced in the wee hours of the morning and banging on the door. Ah, memories!)

 

[veggiefan]

In the UK can witnesses be in the court room during the trial, or only for their own testimony?

They are not allowed into the court room before they testify. After that, they can stay to observe the rest of the trial if they wish.

 

[veggiefan]

would it be a different matter, if I injure someone whether inadvertently, or in a rage or whatever and because of my action this person appears to have stopped breathing. A rapid response from the emergency services might, just might be able to revive that person with specialist equipment. Failing to contact such services because I wanted to distance myself, or for any other reason, would this not be crime in English Law?

No. While it would be prudent to call an ambulance, doing so is unlikely to make any difference in the scenario you suggest. Once somebody has stopped breathing, irreparable brain damage occurs within two to three minutes - a far shorter time than it can be reasonably expected for an ambulance to arrive.

Failure to call an ambulance could well contribute to evidence that a crime had been committed, which the perpetrator was hoping to cover up, but it is not in itself a crime (except in cases where a duty of care is involved).

 

[veggiefan]

The jury (six men and six women) have been sworn in this morning, and have now been sent home with instructions to return on Monday for the opening of the case. So I doubt that we will now hear anything new until next week.

Jury site visits to Clifton are now scheduled for Tuesday next.

 

[aneurin]

...
But you have immediately spoilt your point by using biased language ("the jury bought the defence version").

I must admit I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Due to the adversarial nature of the British criminal justice system, juries are commonly faced with two different versions of events. In reaching a decision they buy into one version of the other. I'm at a loss to understand why a factual statement regarding the fact that 10 members of the jury in the Robert Brown bought the defence version of events as opposed to the 2 that bought the prosecution version of events indicates any bias.

And you've done it again. You know very well that what is required in criminal trials in the UK (and in most of the western world) is that the accused is innocent unless the jury is convinced otherwise beyond any reasonable doubt.

I don't think that using phrases which suggest that the jury "buys" ideas, or that lawyers "sell" ideas is very helpful. Do please give the ordinary man or woman in the jury more credit than implying they are the unwitting victims of some sales campaign - otherwise we might just as well do away with trial by jury.

It's very helpful to understanding the way in which criminal trials actually work. Any individual piece of evidence is largely meaningless until it is placed in context; both prosecution and defence will weave their own version of events around the 'proof' that is presented in court to provide the context. Juries are perfectly well aware of this process, will argue and debate with each other during their deliberations, and will buy into one version of events to some degree or another in reaching their decision. Reasonable doubt enters into it because, whilst a jury might well buy into the prosecution version, they haven't done so to a sufficient degree to exclude the possibility that they could be wrong.

Personally I think this is a good thing, or perhaps the least bad way of deciding matters in a contested criminal case. I can quite understand if you have your reasons for not liking it, but it is what it is.

 

[Cherwell]

That makes me want to watch 12 Angry Men again

 

[veggiefan]

I must admit I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Simply that I think your use of financial analogies (lawyers "selling" arguments and juries "buying" them) is ... how shall I put it? ... a little insensitive in a case of this kind.

I can quite understand if you have your reasons for not liking it, but it is what it is.

I fully understand, and approve of, the British legal process. It's just that I find describing it in terms of financial transactions rather distasteful, particularly in a case in which the life of a beautiful and talented young lady has been brought to such a terrible and premature end, and in which her family and loved ones will be spending the next month listening to the gory details of exactly what happened.

It's just describing that painful process in terms of buying and selling, as if the courtroom is some sort of marketplace, that I object to. That's all. Sorry if I hadn't made that sufficiently clear earlier. No hard feelings.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Who is the judge, is it Douglas Field.