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

[FiestyFairy]

There was no expert testimony on VTs inability to recall details. What qualification does WC have to start educating the jury on the effect of short term trauma on the human mind?

 

[Luna15]

BOTTOM TO TOP

Rupert Evelyn
Bill Clegg QC 'when you actually focus on those few seconds.... are you able to say that he intended to kill?'

Rupert Evelyn
BC 'the totality of the injuries, leaving aside the neck and the nose, were superficial'

Rupert Evelyn
BC describes the moment Jo died as 'a few seconds of madness'.

Rupert Evelyn
BC 'the human body reacts in a different way to trauma'

 

[veggiefan]

He also said earlier in the speech that the independent evidence supported the later time. What independent evidence is that?

Could be the prosecution's own pathologist who stated that death occurred between 9pm and 11pm. A median time of 10pm makes death at 9.30 more likely than death a few minutes before 9pm.

 

[Luna15]

BOTTOM TO TOP

Rupert Evelyn
Bill Clegg QC has finished his closing speech. Jury sent home and told to come back at 1030 tomorrow for judge's summing up.

Rupert Evelyn
Bill Clegg ask jury whether 'prosecution have proved to you and whether he had the intention the law demands for murder'

Rupert Evelyn
BC 'if it did happen or it might have happened in the way that he said could anybody be sure that he intended to kill?' No says Clegg

 

[veggiefan]

I agree about the impressionability of juries too. I'm not stupid, yet failed to grasp the differences between motive & intent. Given that there is a substantial proportion of people using the internet who haven't grasped that the victim's name was Joanna, rather than Joanne, it doesn't leave me optimistic.

I agree. And however much the judge may stress the importance of intent rather than motive, member of that jury ARE going to ask themselves WHY VT should do all this?

Was he discovered in a compromising position? The prosecution have not suggested he was.

Was he burgling her flat? No suggestion of that.

Was there a long-running feud between VT and JY? No suggestion of that, either.

Does he just go round killing people for the thrill of it? It was stated in court earlier in the year that he has no criminal record.

I don't expect the jury to find this at all easy, and will not be surprised if the judge has to accept a majority verdict or - even worse - a hung jury.

 

[notsure]

The defence describe VT's killing as "a few seconds of madness" and say no wonder he couldn't remember the details... And yet, they are asking the jury to accept that he remembered that he had no intention to kill JY. They can't have it both ways, surely.

 

[essex63]

Not posted on here in months, but read it all.

For me the deciding factor is how long VT kept his hand(s) around her neck. Unfortunately that can't be proven, and it is probably genuinely the case that he doesn't remember.

However, if his words were reported accurately, didn't he say that he only let go after she "went limp"? If true, how much longer would he have carried on if she hadn't?

So - it is not a coincidence that she died/passed out at the moment he lets go. He squeezed *until* that happened.

Is that logical?

 

[Luna15]

The defence describe VT's killing as "a few seconds of madness" and say no wonder he couldn't remember the details... And yet, they are asking the jury to accept that he remembered that he had no intention to kill JY. They can't have it both ways, surely.

I think that is a really good point - how does even he KNOW in those "few minutes of madness" that he didn't intend killing her??

that's what would do it for me - his selective cases of amnesia would make me doubt everything he says, but I am still confused (sorry Aneurin :blushing whether that would be enough to convict him of murder....

I need to hear the direction the Judge gives to the Jury.

 

[veggiefan]

You can't offer as a defence against a charge of murder the fact that you purposefully performed a notoriously lethal action but with an element of doubt as to the quantity or duration. People who don't want to kill others don't deliberately do notoriously lethal things to them.

But the actual act of strangling is not lethal unless it continues for some time.

Strangle holds are used in some types of sport and by LE officers in the states - sometimes with lethal results, but there is no intention to kill.

The sad case of playing "Russian Roulette" is another case in point. It is obviously foolhardy in the extreme, but when it goes wrong (as it does), the charge is generally one of manslaughter or recklessness.

 

[Nausicaa]

There was no expert testimony on VTs inability to recall details. What qualification does WC have to start educating the jury on the effect of short term trauma on the human mind?

Even if he possessed such competence he needs to be sworn in as an expert witness before he starts acting as one.

 

[Firefly75]

Rupert Evelyn
BC 'the totality of the injuries, leaving aside the neck and the nose, were superficial'

So - I suppose leaving aside the fact that a person died at the hands of another person who can't not have been fully aware that what he was doing to her was not only unwanted by her and unpleasant to her, but also potentially fatal (she screamed; people who are being strangled tend to struggle against the strangler, as per testimony by Dr. C.; and she had injuries and her wrists show that the perp grabbed her while she was still alive), it was only a minor, insignificant incident and BC is asking the jury to just give him a slap on the wrist and say, "Bad boy, no cookie"?

 

[Luna15]

Not posted on here in months, but read it all.

For me the deciding factor is how long VT kept his hand(s) around her neck. Unfortunately that can't be proven, and it is probably genuinely the case that he doesn't remember.

However, if his words were reported accurately, didn't he say that he only let go after she "went limp"? If true, how much longer would he have carried on if she hadn't?

So - it is not a coincidence that she died/passed out at the moment he lets go. He squeezed *until* that happened.

Is that logical?

Totally :thumb:

 

[Luna15]

I think that is a really good point - how does even he KNOW in those "few minutes of madness" that he didn't intend killing her??

that's what would do it for me - his selective cases of amnesia would make me doubt everything he says, but I am still confused (sorry Aneurin :blushing whether that would be enough to convict him of murder....

I need to hear the direction the Judge gives to the Jury.

ETA - oh and dont forget, during those "few minutes of madness" - he clearly remembers she didn't struggle either!

 

[FiestyFairy]

ETA - oh and dont forget, during those "few minutes of madness" - he clearly remembers she didn't struggle either!

And he clearly remembers they were not on the floor or in the hallway

 

[veggiefan]

his selective cases of amnesia would make me doubt everything he says

I hope you don't doubt his admission that he killed JY, otherwise we really are in trouble. :blushing:

 

[Nausicaa]

But the actual act of strangling is not lethal unless it continues for some time.

Which it did. As you enjoy playing statistics, let's recall that the defence pathologist gave a range of 15-45 seconds. The median is 30 seconds. Agreed ?

Strangle holds are used in some types of sport and by LE officers in the states - sometimes with lethal results, but there is no intention to kill.

The sad case of playing "Russian Roulette" is another case in point. It is obviously foolhardy in the extreme, but when it goes wrong (as it does), the charge is generally one of manslaughter or recklessness.

Well that would be very interesting if anyone was claiming that he was a police officer trying to arrest her or that they were engaged in sport or Russian Roulette at the time.

 

[notsure]

I hope you don't doubt his admission that he killed JY, otherwise we really are in trouble. :blushing:

Luckily, we don't have to take his word for anything: the evidence is all we need.

 

[Firefly75]

I hope you don't doubt his admission that he killed JY, otherwise we really are in trouble. :blushing:

It took him a mighty long time to come out with that one, and he only admitted it when he saw that he really had no way out.

Remember his statements to the press and friends and the police:
Oooh, such a sad thing, I only come here at weekends now...
Who on earth can do something like that, must have been a completely crazy, detached person...
That strange landlord we have, you know, and the way his car was before and after - you want to have a look at him.
My DNA? You must have got it wrong in the lab!

But no, the one thing I totally believe him is that he took her life. I don't believe him when he says it was accidental and he didn't mean it/didn't know she was going to die if he continues strangling her.

Imagine - you do something that makes the other person scream out in terror. You cover her mouth, grab her neck, squeeze. Do you, can you, really expect her to not start screaming again if you let go? To politely show you the door instead?

 

[bijoux]

Who's paying WC's fee?

Surely legal aid wouldn't cover it?

 

[Fluttershy]

Imagine - you do something that makes the other person scream out in terror. You cover her mouth, grab her neck, squeeze. Do you, can you, really expect her to not start screaming again if you let go? To politely show you the door instead?

If I believe that he grabbed her in a clumsy attempt to make a pass and she screamed, and to shut her up he grabbed her throat, then he was faced with two scenarios:

1. Let go straightaway, she calls the police, his first g/f finds out that he was making a pass at another woman and is violent and leaves. He might have to go to court might go to prison and lose his job, and he will probably have to find another place to live.

2. Keep going and hope that you can be clever enough that the police never find out what you've done. Everything stays more or less as it is if you can just not get caught.

Such a horrible thought, that someone might consider it easier to kill someone than to face up to the consequences of their actions.