GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #15

[veggiefan]

My comment related to why VT, an architect, couldn't find something interesting to photograph in the fresh snow ... making the assumption that architects view buildings are art, and snowy buildings as more artistic than otherwise.

Frankly, I don't believe the story about photography at all. Conditions were icy, but there was no significant fresh snow until the early hours of the next morning. In any case, it was totally dark when VT claimed he went out to photograph something.

 

[weeeva]

I have been following this case from the beginning. Over at the FB site and here. I have not had the inclination to post on FB but I would like to share my thoughts here. But if the admin over at FB reads this then she has my permission to paste it there.

I have some real problems understanding why the pros. didn´t pursue these things:

1: why, when two hands are placed on the front of the face and neck, didnt JY back away ?
Unless she was up against a wall she could of `fallen away´ from him and gotten free. Unless he was holding her at the back of the head and at the front of the throat (like the evidence of the finger bruises states) - or, up against a wall. When asked, `where were you in the kitchen? ` he was allowed to answer - `dunno´.

2. When Jo´s body `went limp` - how did she fall ? How did VT lower her to the ground ? did he let her fall like a sack ? or was he still holding her ?
If he was still holding her when she went `limp `then he must of lowered her to the ground - in which case he knew at that point she was in trouble and that he had done something badly wrong. Its a point they have not pursued IMO.

3. The screams. Were they `outdoor`screams or `indoor` screams? This has a huge impact on the case if the witnesses judge them to be `outdoor`screams. According to VT, she screamed inside the flat twice - supposedly with the door shut. So - what did the witnesses hear ? I know I would easily be able to distinguish between outdoor and indoor.

4. What is bothering me the most is the coincidence of VT knowing GR was away for the weekend. Without that knowledge he would have never (being a shy - 1 girlfriend type) gotten into that situation. It smacks of intent and with his girlfriend being away too) it has a `opportunity situation` written all over it.[/QUOTE]

Welcome Capricorn 101.

Some good points there. Point 4 is of particular interest for me and quite frankly it's driving me nuts.
It has not been proved that VT knew that JY was going to be alone that weekend, BEFORE he entered her apartment. Did CJ tell VT that GR was away, or did JY tell him.
Cherwell corrected me on this and said that prosecution only have to prove intent.
I am now completely baffled.
Could VT's knowledge that JY was alone that night BEFORE he even spoke to JY. not be seen as intent as VT would not have approached JY if he did not have that knowledge.
Does anyone else see what I am getting at?

 

[Curious Alice]

Frankly, I don't believe the story about photography at all. Conditions were icy, but there was no significant fresh snow until the early hours of the next morning. In any case, it was totally dark when VT claimed he went out to photograph something.

I am with you on this, sounds unlikely. And (if true) surely having made the effort to go out in that awful weather you would just point and shoot a few pics and perhaps delete them if they were not any good.

 

[bijoux]

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)

Regarding the premeditation (malice aforethought) as per wiki:

The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."
The elements of common law murder are:
Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning—a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

1. Intent to kill: the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. In other words, "intent follows the bullet." Examples of deadly weapons and instruments include but are not limited to guns, knives, deadly toxins or chemicals or gases and even vehicles when intentionally used to harm a victim.

2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart": an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.

OR

4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony: the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies.
***

Is the above accurate or not?

 

[otto]

From what I have read he put his right hand around the small of her back to draw her towards him to kiss her. She screamed and he put his left hand over her mouth, said sorry, withdrew his left hand, she screamed again so he put his left hand back over her mouth and used his right hand to "hold" her throat

From skynewsgatherer
Tabak holds up right hand. He says his other hand was on Joanna's mouth.

From Rupert Evelyn
you're squeezing her throat with your right hand, your dominate hand, you r left hand was over her mouth making it impossible to breath

From the fingernail marks at the back off her neck, it sounds like his right hand was pulling her towards him and his left was pushing against her mouth. I can sort of see how this might prevent her running away and could account for her not having been pushed against a hard surface

A very concocted story IMHO

She had bruising on her wrist, which even according to the defence, happened before death

From Skynewsgatherer
Jury now shown clear mark on Joanna's wrist, which happened in life, according to Dr Cary.

So something happened before the alleged attempted kiss which caused that mark

Pity that GR wasn't asked to confirm she had no marks on her wrist when he last saw her

I can believe that they were in the kitchen. She offered him a drink so that sounds plausible

FWIW there are no steps in the hallway and twas me that sent the picture of the kitchen window

Thanks. Was there a door to the kitchen?

 

[aneurin]

Just read your reply Cherwell. I am afraid I am out of my depth here. I can't figure out what this means. I will stay with it and try to work out what you mean.
It's terrible getting old.

OK, roughly speaking premeditation relates to the state of mind of the accused before the act was carried out, intent relates to the state of mind of the accused as the act was being carried out. You need to show intent to prove a charge of murder, you don't need to show premeditation, but if you can show premeditation they'll get a stiffer sentence.

 

[otto]

Frankly, I don't believe the story about photography at all. Conditions were icy, but there was no significant fresh snow until the early hours of the next morning. In any case, it was totally dark when VT claimed he went out to photograph something.

So it's just as likely that he was prowling around and made up the photography story in case anyone saw him.

 

[Cherwell]

I guess her nose might have been broken when he dropped her/put her down on the way to his flat. Would that cause enough blood to stain her top, get in her hair and most puzzlingly on the sole and toe of her sock? If that's what happened there may not have been any blood in the flat and it would explain why he really needed that rock salt!

Injuries to the nose, even minor ones, can result in profuse bleeding, so I would say yes to that. If there was any blood pooled on the ground, her foot might have dabbled in it briefly when he picked her up.

 

[Clio]

Thanks. Was there a door to the kitchen?

It looks like there is a door

 

[otto]

It looks like there is a door

Thanks. I think that is the point that makes me think that Joanna was not in the kitchen when she was attacked. First we have to believe that she beckoned a stranger into her flat when she was alone, then she invited him in ... but not to sit down in the dining area or on the sofa ... but she went into the kitchen, a small room where the door may be closed, and he followed her there. Once inside the kitchen, she and VT supposedly had a 10 minute conversation where she supposedly flirts with him. I'm not buying it for some reason. I suspect everything happened in the hallway and he mentioned the kitchen to cover the possibility that his DNA was in there.

 

[Cherwell]

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)

Regarding the premeditation (malice aforethought) as per wiki:

The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."
The elements of common law murder are:
Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning—a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

1. Intent to kill: the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. In other words, "intent follows the bullet." Examples of deadly weapons and instruments include but are not limited to guns, knives, deadly toxins or chemicals or gases and even vehicles when intentionally used to harm a victim.

2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart": an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.

OR

4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony: the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies.
***

Is the above accurate or not?

From the spelling I deduce that it comes from US sources. As this case is in the UK, we shouldn't assume that any of those definitions apply in the UK (or specifically England).

 

[Curious Alice]

Are there any women on this forum that would invite a stranger, albeit one she MIGHT recognise, into their home whilst they were alone, at night ? I know I would not.

 

[Nausicaa]

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)

Regarding the premeditation (malice aforethought) as per wiki:

The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."
The elements of common law murder are:
Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning—a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

1. Intent to kill: the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. In other words, "intent follows the bullet." Examples of deadly weapons and instruments include but are not limited to guns, knives, deadly toxins or chemicals or gases and even vehicles when intentionally used to harm a victim.

2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart": an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.

OR

4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony: the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies.
***

Is the above accurate or not?

No it isn't. Malice aforethought is not and never has been an essential ingredient of murder in English law. If you plan to kill in advance, that proves it is a murder. But if you decide to kill on the spur of the moment, that is still a murder. Murder is purposefully killing someone - doing what you know is liable to kill. That's all. The English legislator has always been at pains to respect the natural meaning of the word, not to modify it.

 

[Nausicaa]

Are there any women on this forum that would invite a stranger, albeit one she MIGHT recognise, into their home whilst they were alone, at night ? I know I would not.

Perhaps that's why you're still alive and Joanna isn't.

But to be fair it seems that Joanna may have known VT well enough to nod to him. He was a neighbour. He didn't know her name, but when he and TM were talking about GR and JY after the disappearance but before the body was discovered, they said that they had a passing acquaintance with them.

 

[weeeva]

It was made public a long time ago that CJ, who is clearly something of a chatterbox, met VT (who was riding his bike) early in the fatal evening and told him the story of how he and others had had to help jump-start Greg's car so that he could get away for the week-end.

Yes I was aware of this Nausicaa, and went along with it from day 1, and took it for granted that it would be brought up at the trial, to prove that VT knew that JY was alone that night.
I don't know what it is with me, but I just can't shake off this feeling that no one is taking this matter seriously.
It seems it does not matter whether JY invited VT in or whether he just turned up at her door, because he knew GR was away.
We can't pass judgement on something so serious by listening to and believing gossip and rumour printed in the press and in forums such as this.
I wish I could just let it go. I am like a dog with a bone. I keep going back to it.

 

[Curious Alice]

Perhaps that's why you're still alive and Joanna isn't.

But to be fair it seems that Joanna may have known VT well enough to nod to him. He was a neighbour. He didn't know her name, but when he and TM were talking about GR and JY after the disappearance but before the body was discovered, they said that they had a passing acquaintance with them.

It was said in court on 10th October that they did not know each other though (widely reported in the press on that date) and AFAIK this hasn't been disputed in court (has it ?)

Many people who live in basement flats are extra cautious about answering the door to strangers. I wouldn't consider myself an overly cautious person, and my door is never opened without a chain across it during the hours of darkness ( but hey, that's me not Jo, we don't know what she did.)

I'm leaning towards the initial attack coming from behind, as she opened the door - not sure why, but I guessed months ago that he would go for a pass gone wrong excuse and I am just not convinced by his explanation.

Could the way her neck was held be consistent with VT's hand grabbing her neck and covering her mouth from behind ?

 

[Curious Alice]

Yes I was aware of this Nausicaa, and went along with it from day 1, and took it for granted that it would be brought up at the trial, to prove that VT knew that JY was alone that night.
I don't know what it is with me, but I just can't shake off this feeling that no one is taking this matter seriously.
It seems it does not matter whether JY invited VT in or whether he just turned up at her door, because he knew GR was away.
We can't pass judgement on something so serious by listening to and believing gossip and rumour printed in the press and in forums such as this.
I wish I could just let it go. I am like a dog with a bone. I keep going back to it.

I have wondered if, for some reason, this information is inadmissable in court (possibly because CJ can't be called as a witness because of his own legal issues with LE).

 

[Neurotripsy]

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)

Regarding the premeditation (malice aforethought) as per wiki:

The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."
The elements of common law murder are:
Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning—a deliberate and premeditated killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

1. Intent to kill: the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. In other words, "intent follows the bullet." Examples of deadly weapons and instruments include but are not limited to guns, knives, deadly toxins or chemicals or gases and even vehicles when intentionally used to harm a victim.

2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart": an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.

OR

4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony: the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies.
***

Is the above accurate or not?

That's definitely from a US page, here's the page regarding murder in English law: Murder in English law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Firefly75]

Are there any women on this forum that would invite a stranger, albeit one she MIGHT recognise, into their home whilst they were alone, at night ? I know I would not.

I'd like to say that I wouldn't and no two ways about it, but you know what? I'm not sure I can really say I wouldn't with 100% certainty. It depends on why they'd be at my door, and on how much their arrival would throw me off balance. If a neighbour knocked and brought back my cat, then made small talk about the cat or something similar, I might ask if they want a cup of tea if it's bitterly cold out there. I don't know for sure, but I couldn't say for sure that I wouldn't. A complete stranger, no. Do you know what I mean?

But I certainly wouldn't 'beckon' anyone in.

Personally, I don't believe JY did, either. I think it's possible that she came home, took off her coat and her boots, dumped her backpack, washed her hands, turned on the oven and poured the cider. Then, there was a knock on the door. Perhaps a voice, "It's V. from next door, I've brought your cat." Whatever excuse he might have used if it wasn't the cat. Then, when she opened the door (possibly after checking through the window or the spy-hole), he either made neighbourly small talk, perhaps about the cat, perhaps warning her about the icy path or pavement, and she may or may not have asked him to step in out of the cold before he attacked her; or he attacked her as soon as she opened the door. For some reason I think the attack occurred in the hall, very soon after she came home and very very soon after she opened the door, and she never invited him into the kitchen, nor did she beckon him in as he says. If he went to the kitchen (and bedroom and anywhere else), I think it was after the attack. I don't know if this is what happened, and I can't prove it. But, like someone said before (I think it may have been Otto), I think he'd decided he was going to enter her life before he knocked on her door. I don't know why or how, or how he'd thought it was going to work. She didn't react the way he'd imagined she would - she got scared, screamed, resisted. He strangled her. Perhaps he didn't intend to strangle her before he knocked, but I think he intended to do something else, make a pass at her, as he put it, whatever exactly that meant to him. It was either getting what he wanted (rape?) or killing her after she'd opened the door.

As I said, I can't prove it. My speculations only.

 

[Clio]

It was said in court on 10th October that they did not know each other though (widely reported in the press on that date) and AFAIK this hasn't been disputed in court (has it ?)

Many people who live in basement flats are extra cautious about answering the door to strangers. I wouldn't consider myself an overly cautious person, and my door is never opened without a chain across it during the hours of darkness ( but hey, that's me not Jo, we don't know what she did.)

I'm leaning towards the initial attack coming from behind, as she opened the door - not sure why, but I guessed months ago that he would go for a pass gone wrong excuse and I am just not convinced by his explanation.

Could the way her neck was held be consistent with VT's hand grabbing her neck and covering her mouth from behind ?

It was stated by VT in his opening testimony in court that he did not know JY or GR by name but they had met before VT went to the States

From Richard Payne
Jo and Greg Reardon moved in on Oct 25, few days before he went to LA to work. Met couple briefly once before he left.

From Rupert Evelyn
Def - by 17th december did you know Joanna Yeates by name? 'no' says VT. he knew they had a cat. He'd seen it a couple of times

It's not actually a basement flat. The press kept calling it that, but it's actually a ground floor flat. There are no steps down into the flat

When I was JY's age, if a neighbour who I had met once knocked on my door around Christmas time, perhaps bringing my cat back to me, yes, I might very well have invited them in