GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #16

[aneurin]

This is from the Wiki article on the Right to silence in England and Wales - it will be helpful to those who have failed to take on board the substantial modifications to the no adverse inference principle introduced in 1994 :

There are indeed rules that govern how the courts may formally draw adverse inferences from a defendant's silence. Juries however can take as little or as much notice of such rules as they like.

 

[Clio]

A few choice snippets from the judges summation

Judge #JoYeates: His no comment to police doesn't prevent you from drawing conclusions from his silence.

#Tabak judge: "a person given legal advice has the choice to accept it; VT was warned that anything he did not say may harm his defence".

Judge is taking jury through #VincentTabak's defence statement reminding them of certain facts he left out.

Jury is entitled to draw inferences from the omissions, Judge says.

Is "a matter for jury to decide" if #Tabak has tailored/invented his account. Must decide if many omissions from statement are significant.

#Tabak judge: "what happened in the flat that night is based solely on evidence of Vincent Tabak and evidence of the pathologist".

"It's also a matter for you that the neck is a very vulnerable area," says judge. "and that Joanna would have struggled,"

"It is for you to decide long he gripped Joanna round her neck," Judge tells jurors.

"It's your task to decide whether you are sure that when he strangled Joanna that he intended to kill her" says judge.

" Or at the very least intend to cause her serious harm," says judge.

Judge asks jury to try to reach unanimous verdict. Sent out at 12.24pm by court clock.

There will be no verdict between 1 and 2 pm

 

[FiestyFairy]

If VT went into this trial without disclosing
- flirty comment
- kiss
- it happened in the kitchen
- he carried her to the bedroom

What on earth was his explanation of events? She lured him in for drink and started to randomly scream. He hadnt done anything but he thought he should put a hand around her mouth and grab her throat to silence her?

This man is unbelievable in more ways than one!

 

[Curious Alice]

If VT went into this trial without disclosing
- flirty comment
- kiss
- it happened in the kitchen
- he carried her to the bedroom

What on earth was his explanation of events? She lured him in for drink and started to randomly scream. He hadnt done anything but he thought he should put a hand around her mouth and grab her throat to silence her?

This man is unbelievable in more ways than one!

Good question, how on earth did he explain how the death occurred and what scenario of events did he offer ?

 

[Nausicaa]

Good question, how on earth did he explain how the death occurred and what scenario of events did he offer ?

I suspect he thought his goose was cooked until some well-wisher started explaining to him how to spin his story.

 

[Clio]

It would be interesting to know just how many lies he told, wouldn't it?.

It would probably take less time to list the things he said which were true

 

[aneurin]

I suspect he thought his goose was cooked until some well-wisher started explaining to him how to spin his story.

And given that he was in prison, VT would have had contact with a number of individuals who likely had a certain amount of experience in spinning tales to a court.

 

[aneurin]

It would probably take less time to list the things he said which were true

It would certainly take less time to list the things that he even said.

 

[whiterum]

I think his eye must have developed a nervous twitch here.

LOL- I'll bet by the time he concluded , he was winking, twitching and coughing all the way to his quarters.

 

[Neurotripsy]

Neurotripsy - did you see VT? Was he really hanging his head so low that you could barely see it above the edge of the dock? That's what the twitter description was, and I didn't see any court artist depictions, so just curious as to what he looked like!

Apparently GR was shaking his head during the defence closing statements - did you see that?

Didn't see the defence's statement, those of us who attended the morning session weren't allowed to go back for the afternoon unfortunately.

Yep, he kept his head quite low to start with but by the end of the morning session his nose was almost touching the table! He kept alternating between massaging his head and gripping it so tightly he could well have ripped his own hair out, was quite unnerving seeing the latter as I just kept picturing his hands around poor Joanna's neck.

Got the fright of my life this morning during the judge's instructions, the first time I turned to look at VT he made eye-contact with me (not to sound dramatic but I could literally feel the shiver running down my spine), really wasn't expecting that as he tends to look at the public gallery through his fingers and even that's once per session at the most!

 

[aneurin]

....


Frankly, if if weren't for VT's confession and his computer activities after the murder, I'd be tempted to think of a stitch up. He wouldn't be the first one with a false confession, ...

Well VT never made a confession as such; all he did was plead guilty to a lesser charge and issue a defence statement that was somewhat (as we now know) lacking in detail.

....particularly after having been in solitary confinement and under medical supervision before...

I'm not aware of any reports that VT was held in solitary confinement, or indeed under medical supervision, other than the fact that he was placed on suicide watch which would be fairly standard practice in the circumstances.

... in a situation where LE was so desperate for results that they even jumped at the poor landlord like they did.

As said before, arresting people during the course of a murder inquiry is perfectly standard practice here in the UK.

It also looked odd how they harped in on VT after his arrest.

Not really, given the evidence.

Was he ever asked to enter a plea?

Yes, at the Plea and Case Management Hearing.

Did he ever get the presumption of innocense before he confessed to manslaughter, some three or so months later?

Yes, we presume innocence in the UK.

By the way, wrong confessions are not as rare as one might think: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/08/12/why-do-innocent-people-confess/

Which is why the UK police, unlike US LE, tend not to chase confessions. The whole Stefan Kiszko thing has rather put them off that option.

 

[Fluttershy]

'the fact that he lied may affect your assessment of him as to whether he's a truthful witness'

and

'That's you panicking is it, Mr Tabak?'

are my quotes of the trial. Talk about gallows humour...

 

[Curious Alice]

But still, nothing in the case makes much sense to me, it all looks like a puzzle being forced together with pieces that do not seem to match. Following the trial, it appears everybody is clasping at straws and moving points around to somehow fit their picture, but not *the* picture. And it gives a rather bad taste to the mouth.

Oh well, guess I've said my piece. Now back to lurking. Reckon they'll let us know whether the pig was green or blue.

:greetings:

Interesting post - this has not been a straightforward case has it ?

Don't be too harsh on the QC's - they are limited by the system, the law and by best practise on what they can say and how they present it in court. The UK courtroom does not often see a dramatic, Perry Mason performance, and I think this case is a little different because it is already established that he killed her, it's just the line between m/slaughter and murder that had to be shown. [Edit: have a look at the post above for a great example of the QC for the Prosecution slaying VT with words - subtle as a velvet hammer)

I think both sides elect to keep the evidence as sparce and simple as will serve their purpose, much of the "is this relevant" negotiations have gone on behind the scenes, during discussion of points of law, evidence that is negated by other evidence etc. I think this intent has been quite well served, as the Judges summing up was fair, clear and straightforward.

The murky story (pink pigs/blue pigs) was inevitable, with VT witholding important declarations even up to the trial and with Jo dead, and limited forensic evidence - who can tell her version of the story ? Will we ever know why he throttled her to death ?

It is my personal opinion that this case would make much more sense if VT had been truthful throughout, it is his lies and version(s) of events that make no sense.

I don't buy into a more elaborate back story of cover ups though. VT himself referred to the killer as a detached person - I strongly believe he was talking about himself.

 

[Luna15]

Didn't see the defence's statement, those of us who attended the morning session weren't allowed to go back for the afternoon unfortunately.

Yep, he kept his head quite low to start with but by the end of the morning session his nose was almost touching the table! He kept alternating between massaging his head and gripping it so tightly he could well have ripped his own hair out, was quite unnerving seeing the latter as I just kept picturing his hands around poor Joanna's neck.

Got the fright of my life this morning during the judge's instructions, the first time I turned to look at VT he made eye-contact with me (not to sound dramatic but I could literally feel the shiver running down my spine), really wasn't expecting that as he tends to look at the public gallery through his fingers and even that's once per session at the most!

Glad you made it Neurotripsy - will you go tomorrow if they dont return their verdict today? can you say (in your opinion obviously) whether the jury were concentrating on the summing up?

 

[Myserty64]

Keep in mind a vibrant young woman is dead.
Her family, friends and loved ones have a life sentence of terrible memories and wondering why.
We have heard the legal people do their stuff.
Now we wait for jury to deliver justice.

 

[Luna15]

Keep in mind a vibrant young woman is dead.
Her family, friends and loved ones have a life sentence of terrible memories and wondering why.
We have heard the legal people do their stuff.
Now we wait for jury to deliver justice.

... praying for JUSTICE.

 

[FiestyFairy]

Just heard on the West Country news that if there is no verdict by 4pm today the jury will be sent home until tomorrow. (UK time)

 

[wfgodot]

Goatmilk way up above, a belated hello and welcome to WS!

 

[Luna15]

rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
Sat in lobby waiting.......

 

[Luna15]

:greetings:

Interesting post - this has not been a straightforward case has it ?

Don't be too harsh on the QC's - they are limited by the system, the law and by best practise on what they can say and how they present it in court. The UK courtroom does not often see a dramatic, Perry Mason performance, and I think this case is a little different because it is already established that he killed her, it's just the line between m/slaughter and murder that had to be shown. [Edit: have a look at the post above for a great example of the QC for the Prosecution slaying VT with words - subtle as a velvet hammer)

.....

I think WC was giving it a go with the theatrics...

Mr Clegg repeatedly slammed his hand down on the desk while facing the jury, to ram home his points.

http://swns.com/vincent-tabak-murder-trial-the-defences-argument-251726.html