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

[Clio]

skymartinbrunt

#JoYeates trial: Jurors still out after three hours of deliberating. Judge epected to send them home for the night in next hour

 

[otto]

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 :

Thanks. So there is no real right to remain silent.

 

[Curious Alice]

Thanks. So there is no real right to remain silent.

There is a RTRS, but if you then rely on something in court that was not disclosed (the flirting for example) then adverse inference may be drawn from this (ie: is defendant concocting story to fit with other known evidence ?)

 

[otto]

I'm almost sorry to chime in here, as I'm aware my post will be seen as some useless rant or worse, even as some kind of trolling. I'm not an avid forum user and usually just lurk - and I did lurk on the JY threads since she went missing. But the more I read, the more I'm chewing on my own two cents. So I just go out of my way and throw them out there, for good or for worse. Feel free to just skip over and ignore it.

I think the only scenario that would somehow make sense would be a planned and premediated murder - but this would require a motive. And a thorough clean-up job on the site of the crime.

The second best scenario, no matter how unlikely it may seem, would be VT hammering at the door already in a rage, maybe shaking the cat around that he had just caught peeing on his floor, causing JY to scream hell and horror and resulting in a fight that she lost. Placing part of it outside in front of the door would explain the lack of blood and dna inside the flat, VT's anxiety regarding the door, and the clear audibility of her screams. Still it sounds weird. Besides, it was cold winter, not the time for windows and doors standing open to allow a cat coming in.

As a slight variation from the above, JY might have been outside calling the cat - as cats tend to not come when you call, particularly not when it's icy cold outside and you wish to close the door. They rather sneak around in the dark and delight in your tapping about on your socks in the cold to fetch them. I know, I have a cat. So while JY was busy collecting the cat, VT who was loitering around in the garden was overcome with a murderous frenzy.

The last remotely possible scenario would be that VT was already in the flat, perhaps hiding in the bedroom and surprising her there. There could have been some struggle, resulting in her earrings being found in the bed, the quarrel travelled into the hallway where the killing took place. I'm aware this could be easily disputed considering the lack of blood and dna evidence in the flat.


Other than that, it simply beggars belief that there was a killing within ten minutes (at most), even more so if there had been a consentual understanding of having a neighborly chat/drink before, between two people who never had much contact previously. Neither of them was so drunk that they couldn't think straight anymore. JY's reaction to any advances of his side are not very believable, neither is it believable that a man who never showed any signs of psychopathic violence before turns into a killer just like that, wiithin a few minutes and without sufficient pressure. That tidbit of her putting an apron on in order to heat up a pizza and then put it off to open the door sounds a tad flimsy, and why on earth would VT walk all around the house to get to his car? Nothing in the whole thing makes any sense, that whole scenario both prosecution and defense are aiming at smells to the high heavens.

And yes, I can believe that a big, strong man can 'accidently' strangle a small woman. A well meaning friend of mine once broke my arm when jerking me back while I was attempting to cross a street without looking. He saw a car coming and reacted. I'm a rather small woman and he was built like the proverbial brickhouse, so it 'just happened'. He didn't mean it, of course, and was utterly crushed afterwards. Poor guy, I told him the next time I'd prefer to take my chances with the car. But in the JY case, the whole scenario woven around that strangling doesn't make sense. The question whether it was murder or manslaughter reminds me of the question whether the color of the pig they saw flying over your house was green or blue. And while the jury discusses the colors, no one stops to think that pigs can't fly.


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, particularly after having been in solitary confinement and under medical supervision before, in a situation where LE was so desperate for results that they even jumped at the poor landlord like they did. It also looked odd how they harped in on VT after his arrest. Was he ever asked to enter a plea? Did he ever get the presumption of innocense before he confessed to manslaughter, some three or so months later? 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/

It only seems odd that VT wouldn't retract first chance he'd get. He might not be very street-smart, but he cannot be that dumb. But who knows what other psychological issues he has? After months of isolation and 'being worked on', he probably believes himself he has done it, or was so stoned on dope that night that he isn't sure about it anymore. His many 'dunnos' and 'can't remember' do not sound much like an ultra-intelligent bloke trying to save his skin but more like a confused dimwit who cannot quite remember what he was supposed to say. Yikes, he even commented with 'I can't remember' on things he had stated before.

However, the stitch-up-theory suffers a bit from the fact that there seems to be no one protesting it. His girlfriend's father is a lawyer - where is that guy? Where is the family? All afraid that a sound of protest might get him even deeper into trouble? And while I wouldn't give a dime for the validity of his confession, the computer history is an entirely different subject.


Another persistent thought I had was that he probably covers for someone, as this would seem the most logical explanation for all the conflicting tidbits in the whole mess. The only question would be for whom. I can't see TM committing a murder in the timeframe given, and there seems to be no one else in the case for whom he would do such a thing.


I'm sorry if this reads like the classical first-time-poster-troll, but those are just my thoughts. I know they probably don't make much sense and probably rain on everybody's parade, but there is something in the whole case that simply doesn't sit right. I cannot put my finger on it, but it kinda feels like being forced to swallow something you wouldn't touchwith a ten-foot-pole if you knew what's inside. I understand VT makes the perfect baddie with those unfavorable smug mugs of him out there - and the confession, of course - folks want a killer and it seems they get one. Just figure for a moment he were innocent - what an embarrassment for all involved. I bet even his defense lawyer would be embarrassed and not the least bit interested in having such a possibility become known. By the way, are all English defense lawyers that bad? I truly hope I'll never get into a situation in which I'd need one.

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.

I really like the analyogy of coloured pigs! I agree that the prosecution seems to be trying to wrap the facts around the scream heard by the woman across the street. Even here, people are struggling to make sense of the conflicting timeline. The prosecution and judge have said that Joanna returned home at 8:40 as that is the only way to align the screams with the murder. Still, footage and facts suggest that Joanna could not have arrived home, put her things on the table, removed her boots, one sock, coat ... turned on the oven, opened her cider, put on her apron, taken off her apron and been attacked by VT. The prosecution alleges sexual assault, yet the alignment of screams with murder suggest that the murder was instant, not 10 minutes after VT and Joanna had contact. From 8:33 until the murder (7-10 minutes later), there were too many things that had to happen. It just doesn't fit, especially if sexual assault is thrown into the mix.

 

[veggiefan]

@JamesSBeal JamesBeal
Hearing that the jury will be given till 4.30pm today - then we'll be back tomorrow.

 

[Clio]

Skynewsgatherer
All parties in the #Tabak Trial called back to court 1. It is likely that they will be send home for the evening.

 

[Luna15]

Skynewsgatherer
All parties in the #Tabak Trial called back to court 1. It is likely that they will be send home for the evening.

SkyTV saying Jury sent home

 

[veggiefan]

So, no decision after nearly four hours. The verdict is clearly not as obvious as some would like to think.

 

[Clio]

RupertEvelyn
Jury have been sent home for the day with directions from judge not to talk to each other about the case until they come back tomorrow
Jury will come back into court at 1030 tomorrow

 

[Cherwell]

The prosecution and judge have said that Joanna returned home at 8:40 as that is the only way to align the screams with the murder. Still, footage and facts suggest that Joanna could not have arrived home, put her things on the table, removed her boots, one sock, coat ... turned on the oven, opened her cider ....

I easily do all those things within one minute of coming through my door; or a fairly comparable sequence of actions. I'm not buying the taking off one sock idea though ...

.... put on her apron, taken off her apron ....

.... or the apron business. I've seen no evidence she put on an apron.

and been attacked by VT. The prosecution alleges sexual assault, yet the alignment of screams with murder suggest that the murder was instant, not 10 minutes after VT and Joanna had contact. From 8:33 until the murder (7-10 minutes later), there were too many things that had to happen. It just doesn't fit, especially if sexual assault is thrown into the mix.

He might just have made a grab at her. Again, that could just have taken up seconds - he is the one claiming there was a cosy 10 minute chat.

 

[Clio]

So, no decision after nearly four hours. The verdict is clearly not as obvious as some would like to think.

Even if they pretty much all agreed today I would have expected it to go into tomorrow at the earliest.

One of the trials I was a juror for was a much less serious charge than murder. We were sent for deliberation around lunchtime and had pretty much reached agreement that afternoon. However we all decided that we would go home and sleep on it and return the next day in case anyone felt different having thought through the deliberations of the afternoon.

Don't think you can read too much into them not having decided today

ETA The media will no doubt be reporting "Jury Failed to Reach A Verdict" as if they've been in there for weeks

 

[bos]

So many people on here been on a jury; I've never been called & I'm in my 40s!

 

[Sarahlou]

I wouldn't have expected a verdict today. Four hours really isn't that long IMO.

 

[2goldfish]

So, no decision after nearly four hours. The verdict is clearly not as obvious as some would like to think.

a jury who is doing their job has to go through and discuss all evidence, it takes time.


if they're feeling like me it will take awhile. I dont think the prosecution presented a very strong case but VT's story was such crap it's hard to tell how long it will take to decide.

 

[Sammyme]

I really like the analyogy of coloured pigs! I agree that the prosecution seems to be trying to wrap the facts around the scream heard by the woman across the street. Even here, people are struggling to make sense of the conflicting timeline. The prosecution and judge have said that Joanna returned home at 8:40 as that is the only way to align the screams with the murder. Still, footage and facts suggest that Joanna could not have arrived home, put her things on the table, removed her boots, one sock, coat ... turned on the oven, opened her cider, put on her apron, taken off her apron and been attacked by VT. The prosecution alleges sexual assault, yet the alignment of screams with murder suggest that the murder was instant, not 10 minutes after VT and Joanna had contact. From 8:33 until the murder (7-10 minutes later), there were too many things that had to happen. It just doesn't fit, especially if sexual assault is thrown into the mix.

The reason they said she arrived home at 8 40 pm is because that is what the combined CCTV evidence and timing of such a distance on foot suggests.

Why are you saying the murder was 7 to 10 minutes after 8 33 pm? Is that to shore up your claim that Joanna couldn't have opened the cider, turned on her oven etc - although Greg gave evidence of finding the cider open?

If you say it happened at 7 minutes after 8 33 pm which would be 8 40, why are you accusing the prosecution of wrapping it around the screams Mrs Lehman heard, given that Mrs Lehman didn't arrive until 8 45 - 9 00 pm?

What you are saying doesn't fit.

 

[Sammyme]

So, no decision after nearly four hours. The verdict is clearly not as obvious as some would like to think.

Don't juries have lunch? I'd say they would have had maybe 2 1/2 hours -

1/2 an hour before lunch at 1 - 2 pm, then two hours till 4 pm.

 

[Clio]

Don't juries have lunch? I'd say they would have had maybe 2 1/2 hours -

1/2 an hour before lunch at 1 - 2 pm, then two hours till 4 pm.

I think they would have been taken straight to the jury room and had lunch brought in to them. Deliberations carry on whilst eating. That's my experience anyway

 

[Frodo]

Yes, when I did jury service (done it once and been called two more times!) we had lunch brought in, with a 15 minute breather for some fresh air

 

[veggiefan]

Don't juries have lunch?

Once they have started considering their verdict they are confined to the jury room, and served (in my limited experience) ancient sandwiches and snacks. It's up to the foreman whether they actually stop to eat, but since they can't leave many prefer to keep going.

 

[veggiefan]

a jury who is doing their job has to go through and discuss all evidence, it takes time.

Yes, although there is actually very little evidence in this case.

I agree that four hours is not a particularly long time for this case, though. I've said for some time that once emotion is set aside, the factual issues are not clear cut and hard evidence is slight, so the jury don't have an easy job.