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

[Luna15]

sorry if I caused confusion by stating that there was no access between the two flats at the back...

I am seriously wondering why the defence want to emphasise that it wasn't Joanna that screamed?

Why would you scream? because you were scared and viewed someone as a threat... so are they trying to paint a picture that she wasn't scared or threatened by him? ... I guess if he was already in the flat and managed to hide for a while - she would scream when she discovered him and the defence doesn't want it known he was already in there (hence their trying to emphasise that they first saw each other through the kitchen window) ... his already being in the flat would point to 'pre-meditation' and 'murder' as opposed to manslaughter...

hope this makes sense, am dopey due to painkillers...

 

[notsure]

I am seriously wondering why the defence want to emphasise that it wasn't Joanna that screamed?

I think it's to do with challenging the time-line of events proposed by the prosecution. Presumably the version of events that the defence will put forward will involve different timings. Maybe the defence will just challenge everything that the prosecution stated, to undermine the case for murder.

 

[whiterum]

It was a bitterly cold evening. VT got home before JY. The cat might be outside, wanting to go in. He's been into VT's flat before. Ok, he wasn't welcome then, but cats aren't easily discouraged. So Bernard miaows outside VT's door. VT is bored; maybe even a bit annoyed at his girlfriend for being at a party (his texts show him to be quite emotionally demanding), so he hatches a plan. Let the cat in, and when JY comes home, take him round, get chatting, maybe get invited in for a drink. It's Christmas; everyone's friendlier than usual; people are going around hugging strangers, going to parties. He's not happy to be there alone that evening. He feels he deserves some fun too.

I also think his texts show he is clingy and controlling, his partner out for the night to enjoy herself and he is texting her about how bored he is, in a way trying to make her feel guilty that she is out and there he is sitting in.

The prosecution said Jo was only settling in for the night and was interrupted. So either he was already in her flat hiding or as you say he went round there with a lame excuse to get her to open the door and very shortly after was attacked and strangled.

 

[goldielox]

Hi all, I didn't realise till today that the trial had started, so had a bit of catching up to do.

What I'm wondering about is this- Jo's parents said that as soon as they went in to her flat that Sunday night they knew she'd been "abducted". Signs were there, but the police had told them to not reveal what those signs were.

Now the prosecution have stated there was, or must have been, quite a struggle. Has there been mention of signs of blood in the flat...on a wall? Or am I getting confused with the blood at the depo site?

Anyway, its still such a mystery as yet as to what signs were immediately apparent to her parents and yet not at all to GR. As already said a few pages back there can't have been signs of a struggle inside the flat if GR didn't notice, but there was obviously something to notice that her parents picked up on.

 

[Luna15]

I think it's to do with challenging the time-line of events proposed by the prosecution. Presumably the version of events that the defence will put forward will involve different timings. Maybe the defence will just challenge everything that the prosecution stated, to undermine the case for murder.

CCTV images suggested that Miss Yeates got back to her flat shortly before 8.45pm.

Almost as soon as she got home, Miss Yeates was “interrupted by Vincent Tabak”, Mr Lickley said.

Tabak, a Dutchman had moved in only recently, did not know Miss Yeates and was unaware of her name until it later appeared in the news.

“After what may only have been a few minutes,” said Mr Lickley, “there were screams heard by people attending a party.

“Those screams were of Joanna Yeates as Vincent Tabak attacked her.”

The people who heard the screams were seen on CCTV passing the flat at 8.49pm, suggesting that Miss Yeates had been home for only about five minutes when she was strangled.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...gone-to-supermarket-with-body-in-his-car.html

the more I think about it, the more I think she could have discovered him in the flat shortly after she arrived home...

does anybody know what time he first arrived at Asda? they say he walked round without buying anything the first time but then went back in for a second time and made purchaces...

 

[Deckard]

Anyway, its still such a mystery as yet as to what signs were immediately apparent to her parents and yet not at all to GR. As already said a few pages back there can't have been signs of a struggle inside the flat if GR didn't notice, but there was obviously something to notice that her parents picked up on.

I thought what might a mother notice straight off that a b/f would not?

My conjecture was a possible reverse Pulp Fiction moment. If JY had been on the toilet after drinking in the bar and heard or saw something which made her react by getting up quickly and obviously not flushing. Something simple like that might make her parents feel JY wouldn't leave it like that. She was caught short.

 

[Cherwell]

does anybody know what time he first arrived at Asda? they say he walked round without buying anything the first time but then went back in for a second time and made purchaces...

I don't know the time, but it struck me that he might have gone back out because he'd left the lights on. You don't really want a flat battery when you've got a dead body stashed in the boot ....

Tabak, a Dutchman had moved in only recently, did not know Miss Yeates and was unaware of her name until it later appeared in the news.

It was JY who had only moved in recently, not Tabak.

 

[whiterum]

CCTV images suggested that Miss Yeates got back to her flat shortly before 8.45pm.

The timing on the CCTV of Jo passing the Hophouse was 8:45 and it took 7 minutes for the jury to walk from there to her flat which would make her arriving home at 8:52. The defence must be going to try and make some point about this. The timing on the camera could be wrong so maybe the prosecution have already checked that out.

 

[Cherwell]

What I'm wondering about is this- Jo's parents said that as soon as they went in to her flat that Sunday night they knew she'd been "abducted". Signs were there, but the police had told them to not reveal what those signs were.

Yes, I want to know that too. I thought it was the surfboard bag for a long time, but if he used something to wrap the body, there would surely not have been any blood/DNA in the car boot?

Now the prosecution have stated there was, or must have been, quite a struggle. Has there been mention of signs of blood in the flat...on a wall? Or am I getting confused with the blood at the depo site?

There were some red dots on the walls, but these have been explained as forensic markers. The carpets had been removed, so no telling what clues might have been there.

 

[goldielox]

I thought what might a mother notice straight off that a b/f would not?

My conjecture was a possible reverse Pulp Fiction moment. If JY had been on the toilet after drinking in the bar and heard or saw something which made her react by getting up quickly and obviously not flushing. Something simple like that might make her parents feel JY wouldn't leave it like that. She was caught short.

You know, you could be right there Deckard. The Daily Mail has a photo on its website that was taken at the front door looking in. When the front door is open anyone standing at the door looking inside the flat looks straight into the bathroom. Someone in the bathroom and on the loo would look straight through an open bathroom door to the front door.

I wonder if Jo was caught short. Maybe she opened the front door (and left it open), dumped her stuff and scarpered to the bathroom...then, sitting on the loo she sees VT at the open front door looking at her. That would probably make me scream. I've scarpered to the loo leaving my front door not properly shut in the same way myself before too.

The hall, kitchen and bathroom seem to be the focal point of interest, or so it seems to me so far anyway.

The only problem with this potential scenario of course is that she had time to open that cider, which implies that she didn't rush straight to the loo as soon as she got in her flat....or if she did, she made it off the loo to open the cider before VT made an appearance.

 

[Luna15]

Yes, I want to know that too. I thought it was the surfboard bag for a long time, but if he used something to wrap the body, there would surely not have been any blood/DNA in the car boot?

me too (surfboard bag) ...

Jurors were also shown pictures of Tabak's car after it was seized by police and saw the cluttered boot.

Police also found a duvet in the car and some red and orange pillowcases.

perhaps he could have used the pillowcases to cover her head and blood leaked through (from her nose)... sorry to be so graphic - and he used the duvet over the rest of her?....

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...t-for-her-life-115875-23481349/#ixzz1abyaSGOG

 

[Trouble007]

The only problem with this potential scenario of course is that she had time to open that cider, which implies that she didn't rush straight to the loo as soon as she got in her flat....or if she did, she made it off the loo to open the cider before VT made an appearance.

did she drink THAT cider though, or was it cider she drank at the pub?

 

[bijoux]

VT still deserves a fair trial, and I repeat: he has already plead guilty to manslaughter.

We've not heard one bit of evidence yet, to support the prosecution's case, so how can we form decisions? Maybe the prosecution's evidence will support their claims, maybe it won't. Gotta be patient. That's what I keep tell myself when I start jumping to premature conclusions and drive my brain crazy.

I will admit one thing though; based on what we have heard in the prosecution's opening statement, I don't think they have an overwhelmingly solid case for a murder charge. They haven"t even given us a clear scenario of what lead up to the attack, only that it happened, and allegedly that "there was no doubt of his [VT] intent." All they seem to have is a dramatic description of the attack in the words of the prosecutor, alleged screams that can in no way ever be proven to have been JY's, and forensics which may be refutable or inadmissible. Time will tell.

I so enjoy reading conjecture so please keep all of it coming, as long as you leave room for a change of heart when all the evidence is in, or not, as the case may be.

PS: I do think VT's looking up sexual assault on the web will help his case, not the prosecution's, so I am really curious as to why they mentioned it.

 

[Luna15]

did she drink THAT cider though, or was it cider she drank at the pub?

this is what was reported at the time

She bought two 330ml bottles of cider for around £4.

Both were found in her flat after she vanished. One had been opened and half its contents consumed.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3321774/Half-drunk-bottle-of-cider-in-Jo-Yeates-flat.html

I am also wondering if she left the front door/bedroom window ajar to let Bernard out/come back in... and Tabak wandered in/or peering through bedroom window and that's why she screamed...

wondered if their habits with regards to letting Bernard out will be bought up at trial...

 

[Luna15]

VT still deserves a fair trial, and I repeat: he has already plead guilty to manslaughter.

We've not heard one bit of evidence yet, to support the prosecution's case, so how can we form decisions? Maybe the prosecution's evidence will support their claims, maybe it won't. Gotta be patient. That's what I keep tell myself when I start jumping to premature conclusions and drive my brain crazy.

I will admit one thing though; based on what we have heard in the prosecution's opening statement, I don't think they have an overwhelmingly solid case for a murder charge. They haven"t even given us a clear scenario of what lead up to the attack, only that it happened, and allegedly that "there was no doubt of his [VT] intent." All they seem to have is a dramatic description of the attack in the words of the prosecutor, alleged screams that can in no way ever be proven to have been JY's, and forensics which may be refutable or inadmissible. Time will tell.

I so enjoy reading conjecture so please keep all of it coming, as long as you leave room for a change of heart when all the evidence is in, or not, as the case may be.

PS: I do think VT's looking up sexual assault on the web will help his case, not the prosecution's, so I am really curious as to why they mentioned it.

I know it's early days but I think the prosecution will have a job proving pre-meditated murder - it was hardly well thought out by the sound of it!

 

[Cherwell]

I don't think they have an overwhelmingly solid case for a murder charge. They haven"t even given us a clear scenario of what lead up to the attack, only that it happened, and allegedly that "there was no doubt of his [VT] intent." All they seem to have is a dramatic description of the attack in the words of the prosecutor, alleged screams that can in no way ever be proven to have been JY's, and forensics which may be refutable or inadmissible.

We must keep in mind that he has admitted that he killed her, so that does not have to be proved.

I think it will be difficult for the defence to persuade the jury it was manslaughter, given the method of killing. They would need to show that she died very quickly, which is not apparently the case.

 

[Luna15]

We must keep in mind that he has admitted that he killed her, so that does not have to be proved.

I think it will be difficult for the defence to persuade the jury it was manslaughter, given the method of killing. They would need to show that she died very quickly, which is not apparently the case.

the defence might dispute that with medical experts....

the case is expected to last four weeks.... I think an awful lot is going to be discussed.

 

[Cherwell]

I know it's early days but I think the prosecution will have a job proving pre-meditated murder - it was hardly well thought out by the sound of it!

They don't have to prove that it was premeditated. Just that there was intent to kill in the moments when he was attacking her. To show that he had time to stop, and did not.

 

[whiterum]

Anyway, its still such a mystery as yet as to what signs were immediately apparent to her parents and yet not at all to GR. As already said a few pages back there can't have been signs of a struggle inside the flat if GR didn't notice, but there was obviously something to notice that her parents picked up on.

I remember them saying something like "we know what she does and what she does not do"

Mr Reardon had returned to their £200,000 rented flat in time to watch the show with her. Instead, when he arrived Miss Yeates was not there, and the hallway was a mess. Her keys, purse and phone were in the flat — and unusually her boots and jacket were lying on the hallway floor

.

 

[whiterum]

They don't have to prove that it was premeditated. Just that there was intent to kill in the moments when he was attacking her. To show that he had time to stop, and did not.

Yes many convicted murderers have been opportunists, for example they see a girl alone and vulnerable, perhaps when just driving past and get the sudden urge to attack and kill. Just like the girl whose car broke down on the motorway and was just walking to a phone.