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

[notsure]

Cannot imagine being able to act 'normal' at a family gathering like that, even if it was accidental - the guilt and the sheer panic about what would be happening in the UK would be overwhelming (for a normal person at least). How could you just go about your normal Christmas activities??? Even if you thought it *was* accidental, it would be disturbing to say the least.

"Abnormal" behaviour like this will, I suppose, be used to support the manslaughter charge, then. Diminished responsibility due to some form of mental aberration?

If he's not "normal" because there is something wrong with his brain or mind, we should feel sorry for him.

 

[kINGFISHER]

This is very highly recommended reading. It’s an FT profile of/interview with Chris Jefferies, the Bristol landlord who was treated shockingly badly following the murder of one his tenants.(You may be asked to register by the FT, but it’s free of charge)

After appalling treatment from the press (for which he received apologies and substantial compensation) it is interesting to read his assessment of the Press Complaints Commission:


Thanks edgeweller for this . Anyone read this report , have not registered yet.

 

[whiterum]

"Abnormal" behaviour like this will, I suppose, be used to support the manslaughter charge, then. Diminished responsibility due to some form of mental aberration?

If he's not "normal" because there is something wrong with his brain or mind, we should feel sorry for him.

To me his subsequent behaviour would be very telling concerning his true self, that there was a lack of remorse, shame or guilt.

If I were on the Jury his actions after the killing would not invoke any sympathy from me, it would have the opposite effect.

 

[whiterum]

Thanks edgeweller for this . Anyone read this report , have not registered yet.

Yes kingfisher, it gives some insight into what this man went through

It tell of how on December 30, a little after 7am, Jefferies heard a knock at the door of his flat and a voice saying: “It’s the police, Mr Jefferies. We need your help.” He let them in, and was immediately arrested on suspicion of murder.

Must have been a total nightmare for this innocent man.

 

[notsure]

To me his subsequent behaviour would be very telling concerning his true self, that there was a lack of remorse, shame or guilt.

If I were on the Jury his actions after the killing would not invoke any sympathy from me, it would have the opposite effect.

If the lack of remorse, shame and guilt were due to a mental disorder (I don't know if this is possible), then could it be argued that he is not fully responsible for his actions - hence manslaughter rather than murder?

I agree that many people find it harder to sympathise with mental, rather than physical disorders.

 

[kINGFISHER]

nosture : I agree that many people find it harder to sympathise with mental, rather than physical disorders.

Usually people with these disorders are locked in a mental institution for life, so if this is the case he will be .Very fine line to define real criminal intent and proving psycopathy which a person has no control over . So it is sometimes difficult to judge a person , but never the less the crime is terrible and they are watched and incarcerated so they will not commit another crime. There is no cure either scenario would mean a long sentence I would have thought.

nosture : If he's not "normal" because there is something wrong with his brain or mind, we should feel sorry for him.

So if you mean this nosture, I can see where you are coming from.

Whiterum: Must have been a total nightmare for this innocent man.

Wish I was so convinced as you.

 

[notsure]

What I was trying to say is that I've actually changed in my attitude to VT. At the beginning, I felt so angry and disgusted about what he had done, and was just convinced that he was evil to have done what he did.

Now, though, I realise that I was judging him with my own morals: if I did something like that, my conscience would plague me so that I would confess and wish to have my freedom taken away. But VT might not have the same thought processes. He might be deeply emotionally disturbed so that he is incapable of operating in the same way as the average "normal" person. If that is the case, then I do feel pity for him.

Of course that doesn't mean that he should be pardoned for what he did, but I think it's important to realise that human beings do these things, not monsters. Understanding this is vital for our own and our children's self-protection as well.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Nosture ;Of course that doesn't mean that he should be pardoned for what he did, but I think it's important to realise that human beings do these things, not monsters.
Understanding this is vital for our own and our children's self-protection as well.

We can understand the working of their minds. But the public must still be protected. But if this comes down to his own physical cultish philosophy then there is no excuse at all.

 

[notsure]

We can understand the working of their minds. But the public must still be protected. But if this comes down to his own physical cultish philosophy then there is no excuse at all.

Oh sure, I agree with that. But how on earth do they manage to establish the truth about somebody's mental state?

 

[kINGFISHER]

Oh sure, I agree with that. But how on earth do they manage to establish the truth about somebody's mental state?

Difficult one, but this is where your so called expert psychiatrists, psychologist comes in ? There are clues and signs that they would recognise in his personality. Also peculiarities of the brain show up in brain scans of psychopaths. So they say.

 

[bijoux]

I think VT knew the jig was up when he went off to Holland for New Years but wanted to 'keep up appearances' for the sake of his family; after all he did tell them he had been interviewed by the police. Perhaps this was his way of softening the blow of what was to come?

I doubt William Clegg would allow his client to plead manslaughter if there wasn't alcohol involved, and perhaps the presence of a mental illness (ie depression, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia) for which he was taking medication.

I think it is safe to say VT was drunk at the time of the incident. Am sure I read either in his CV or on his facebook page that he listed "drinking'' as an interest.

So could this really have been an accident?

In Agatha Christie's 'The Chocolate Box, Hercule Poirot states: ''There is no such thing as an accident.''

I'm also be mindful of what the Italian judge stated this week after the AK acquittal, when he said their decision "resulted from the truth that was created in the trial...But the real truth could be different."

This is going to be a very interesting.

*trying to have an open mind on all aspects*

 

[whiterum]

If the lack of remorse, shame and guilt were due to a mental disorder (I don't know if this is possible), then could it be argued that he is not fully responsible for his actions - hence manslaughter rather than murder?

I agree that many people find it harder to sympathise with mental, rather than physical disorders.

Speaking in general, someone who has shown no sign of guilt, shame or remorse because he/she is mentally incapable of doing so, in my opinion would be more capable of cold-blooded murder.

Maybe for example a psychopath/sociopath because he felt some insatiable need within himself and in his mentally disordered mind justifies purposely taking a life to fulfil that need, IMO that is still murder under any label.

In addition, it is strange indeed these people seem to have the mental capacity to keep up a facade of normality, the decent family man or whatever, also the ability to cover up their crime and deceive, even get some pleasure out of that.

Many convicted of murder, have not been in a sense normal because normal people would not be capable of such acts against another human being.

IMO it doesn’t make them any less a murderer and they deserve their punishment as such under the law.

 

[veggiefan]

I doubt William Clegg would allow his client to plead manslaughter if there wasn't alcohol involved

Counsel are not allowed to tell their clients how to plead - they have to follow the instructions of the accused's solicitor (the latter can, of course, advise if an intended plea has any hope of success).

Also, drinking - even being drunk - is not a defence to manslaughter through diminished responsibility. VT would have to be able to show that he had an alcohol dependency syndrome at the time of the killing.

I guess your point about alcohol in conjunction with a powerful prescription drug (such as diazepam for bipolar disorder) could work as a defence - he might claim that he hadn't read or understood the instructions - but he would need to be able to prove that he was on such medication at the time.

Of course, we don't even know if he will used the diminished responsibility defence. There are other possibilities, particularly provocation. Could he invent some story about JY taunting him about the apparent break-up of his relationship with TM? Could he even concoct a story that he had found JY in his flat and, in the dark, had assumed that it was a burglar whom he was strangling? Defence of one's own property is a current issue - the CPS no longer seem even to prosecute if you kill a burglar in your own property, so it could be a tempting defence if there is any evidence to suggest such a thing.

All very fanciful, I know, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this case take some odd turns over the coming weeks (odd turns that could well be painful for JY's family and friends). With four weeks allocated for the trial, I think the lawyers must already know that it won't be cut and dried matter.

 

[veggiefan]

Of course, we don't even know if he will used the diminished responsibility defence. There are other possibilities, particularly provocation.

Yet another possibility is that VT will change his plea to guilty of murder, once he and his team have digested the 1,300 pages of evidence that were presented at the last minute by the prosecution (which is the cause of the delay in starting the trial proper).

It could be that there is something in that evidence which so overwhelmingly indicates his guilt, that there is no hope of continuing to plead manslaughter.

If that should be the case, though, it would be a disaster for VT, as he would lose all of the reduction in sentencing tariff available for an early plea of guilty. The courts don't take kindly to those who, having taken up a lot of legal preparation time on a not guilty plea, change that plea as the trial gets under way.

 

[bijoux]

Counsel are not allowed to tell their clients how to plead - they have to follow the instructions of the accused's solicitor (the latter can, of course, advise if an intended plea has any hope of success).

Not sure the difference between solicitor and counsel? I'm Canadian and it's different here.

VT would have to be able to show that he had an alcohol dependency syndrome at the time of the killing.

If he did it wouldn't be hard to prove.

There are other possibilities, particularly provocation.

That would be unfortunate if the defense were to take that route.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this case take some odd turns over the coming weeks (odd turns that could well be painful for JY's family and friends).

Hmmm. Other than provocation? Like what? Do tell!

 

[weeeva]

Obviously this man is not the gentle, respectable man he portrays to be.

It seems only a few hours after hearing his male neighbour is away, he seizes some opportunity resulting in his neighbour’s partner not being seen again until her dead body is found dumped and frozen like rubbish on Christmas Day.

In such a short time he has got close enough to his relatively unknown neighbour to strangle her.

Maybe under the influence he did go round to JY’s and made some sexual advances and was rejected. Any normal guy would react to rejection by skulking off with his tail between his legs, drink or no drink. Certainly not assault the girl by grabbing her around the neck to shut her up or otherwise.

In this scenario why would there be a need to shut her up anyway. If a verbal proposition she would be unlikely to scream just make it clear she’s not interested. It would have to be something physical, some attack or pushy assault on her person, only something that made her feel in danger would make her scream.

IMO the character he portrays is a veneer and not the real him at all.

I had recently become doubtful about my initial idea of what happened on that dreadful night. But on reading your post I have went right back to my original idea. What kind of man thinks he could possibly get away with coming on to a pretty young woman, who he hardly knows, and he is aware that she is in a serious relationship. Jo seemed to have died so quickly after arriving home, VT did not even have the decency to try to woo her for a couple of hours as most men would do, who were silly enough to think they were in with a chance. Nope VT came on heavy from the start. That to me is just not normal. That is where he is different from most men. He caused Jo to scream. A woman does not scream because a man has made a silly pass at her. He frightened her, she knew she was in danger. Poor girl.
He should have been nowhere near Jo that night. His intentions were not good from the start. This is all just my opinion of course.
I apologise for my sketchy writings. I am not very good any more at expressing myself and the words don't flow so easily as they used to.

 

[weeeva]

What I was trying to say is that I've actually changed in my attitude to VT. At the beginning, I felt so angry and disgusted about what he had done, and was just convinced that he was evil to have done what he did.

Now, though, I realise that I was judging him with my own morals: if I did something like that, my conscience would plague me so that I would confess and wish to have my freedom taken away. But VT might not have the same thought processes. He might be deeply emotionally disturbed so that he is incapable of operating in the same way as the average "normal" person. If that is the case, then I do feel pity for him.

Of course that doesn't mean that he should be pardoned for what he did, but I think it's important to realise that human beings do these things, not monsters. Understanding this is vital for our own and our children's self-protection as well.

Yes, I know what you mean. I have always thought it is futile to hate a psychopath as they cannot help what they are, but it is not easy to have sympathy for someone who can cause so much heartache. If they are found to be a danger to society they should have their freedom taken away. It is the psychopaths who never commit a crime that you have to be aware of too. Like the bullying boss or work colleague or spouse, who can make your life a misery.
IMO I don't think VT is a psychopath. His family would not speak so highly of him, and there would have seen signs surely over the years, but blood is thicker than water I suppose ........... and I am not a psychiatrist. Maybe VT does have some other form of mental illness we will have to wait and see.

 

[bijoux]

He caused Jo to scream.

I guess the only way we will know for sure if the scream(s) was Jo's is if VT tells us it was.

 

[Robin Hood]

From McCannexposure - Follow the trial on Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/stevenmorris20

 

[2goldfish]

stevenmorris20 steven morris
Vincent #Tabak trial - jury in, prosecution opening about to start. He denies murdering #JoannaYeates


eta: I hope he updates frequently, like the reporters in the anthony trial did. at least we could watch that one, dang it.