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

[notsure]

It seems to me that the defence's case is based upon the account of events given by VT.

What would have happened if VT had denied everything? The incriminating evidence would have been there just the same.

My question is: without any testimony from the killer, would he have been charged with murder or manslaughter? If it is clear that a certain individual committed the crime, and yet there are no witnesses to say how it happened, is the only possible verdict manslaughter? On the basis that it is impossible to prove intention?

I think what I'm trying to ask is: is there any way of proving that it's murder?

 

[2goldfish]

It is, of course, madness - like all the nonsense about the pizza.

I feel so sorry for JY's family (and VT's, for that matter) in this case.

It's perhaps nobody's fault, but there is very little evidence and both the prosecution and the defence seem to be hanging on to peripheral, and sometimes ridiculous, ideas.

It all places a lot of strain on the jury who, it wouldn't surprise me, may not come up with any clearer idea than those of us who sit on the sidelines and watch.

my bolding

I have a horrid feeling he's gonna scrape by with manslaughter.

I've followed along from when it first made the papers and I feel no more sure of what happened let alone why than I did in the beginning. VT's story aside from the "I dont knows" and "I cant remembers" (oh yeah and the whole "she screamed like a banshee just cause I went for a smoochie and then politely, with no fight, let me strangle her") sounds about as plausable as the prosecutor's stance that it was sexually motivated, which I am not sure it was! I dont believe it was over a kiss or anything like that, but I dont have any idea WHAT it could have been.

his ridiculous explanations alone make me feel more sure of murder than manslaughter because otherwise, why the lies? I believe the "scream for a smoochie" was a lie. I believe saying there was no struggle as the biggest lie of all, and if you're already admitting to manslaughter why lie about the particulars unless those particulars dont point to manslaughter at all.

but that's the problem, I do have those doubts and I am beginning to understand how not having a motive might make it very hard for jurors - I know motive need not be proven but if there isnt one, lots of crimes just dont make SENSE.

as a long time crime junkie, I know they never truly make sense....but as a juror....even knowing this...I do not know what I would vote for, as a juror, in this case.

 

[bos]

It seems to me that the defence's case is based upon the account of events given by VT.

What would have happened if VT had denied everything? The incriminating evidence would have been there just the same.

My question is: without any testimony from the killer, would he have been charged with murder or manslaughter? If it is clear that a certain individual committed the crime, and yet there are no witnesses to say how it happened, is the only possible verdict manslaughter? On the basis that it is impossible to prove intention?

Good question! Is there an actual charge of "unlawful killing" in the UK ?

 

[Curious Alice]

Good question! Is there an actual charge of "unlawful killing" in the UK ?

Inquests can rule a death as Unlawful Killing, as for a charge - don't know I'm afraid. Is that not a term used when the perpetrator is unknown ?

Unlawful killing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sammyme]

I really cannot understand why they continued to go with that idea - it's an absolute no-hoper and I think weakens their case, because I'm sure it will leave some of the jury wondering what else they have "bigged up" to try to support a case in which there is very little evidence.



If it's anything like my experience of jury service some years ago, there is good reason why the authorities are keen to keep the secrets of the jury room under lock and key.

Far from being the great bastion of British justice, I found myself ensconsed with a charming elderly lady doing her knitting, who said she hadn't understood a word of the case, but reckoned that anyone with bushy eyebrows is likely to be guilty. Then there was the one who fully supported any crime against HMRC, another who said he knew the defendant was guilty because he's read about it in the Daily Mail long before the case started, and the jury foreman who never stopped complaining that - as a self-employed businessman - he was losing a fortune every day, and would we please agree on something, and he'd go along with whatever it was.

To be frank, it was a shambles - Gilbert and Sullivan would have had a field day. At one point I complained to the court usher, who simply said "don't worry, it's always like this - just try to decide on something, or we'll have to put you up in a hotel for the weekend, and there's not the budget to do it".

British justice? Lottery, more like.

I had been about to respond to Clio''s post 293 to say that I have no idea what sort of minds the jury members have or how they think. Now I don't know what to say.

 

[bijoux]

I'm not posted this to debate the legal definition of murder, or ask your opinion on the case, but wish to know what you thought of WC's closing statement and do you think any members of the jury found it compelling or effective, and could it swing them either way?

*I have highlighted for easier reading only*

***

WC began by stating there’s nothing to like about VT and he doesn’t deserve our sympathy.

Then he talked about the prosecution’s case.

He said there’s no proof VT knew when JY returned home, or that he knew she was home alone, or that GR was away.

Then he stated there was no proof of the following:

Forced entry
The attack being sexually motivated
Screams heard were definitively JY’s

WC said JY’s injuries were 'extremely minor', ‘superficial’ , leaving aside the neck and the nose, and no one ever saw any injuries on VT.

He said it could have been as short as 10 seconds - or as long as 45.

''20 seconds can seem a long time when stood in court - but it's just a flash in a quick moving situation.''

He said JY did not die from oxygen starvation but heart failure caused by an obstruction of airways,

and

VT’s inability to recall details didn’t help his case, but it's not surprising or unusual for people to be unable to recall events during a traumatic time.

Then he asked, ‘’Are you able to say as his jury that the prosecution have proved to you that he intended to kill.
"Could anyone be sure that he intended to kill her?"

He closed by saying:

‘’Of course afterward VT's behaviour was utterly disgraceful and it is not going to be justified by me, but VT’s actions after JY’s death do not alter what was in his mind at the time of the killing.’’
***
Comments please?

 

[otto]

"The flirting was not mentioned. The fact that he thought Jo Yeates was interested in him – not mentioned. The intent to kiss – not mentioned. The fact that it happened in the kitchen – not mentioned. Moving the body into the bedroom – not mentioned. The killing taking place after the 9.30pm text message – not mentioned.”

I must admit I wasn't aware until now, that all those things were not in VT's defence statement, their absence is quite damning.

Wouldn't that fall into the category of the right to remain silent? It was stated by VT that under advice of counsel he did not answer many questions. It was his right to take the stand and answer those questions, but can it be said that because he did not provide this information to police during the investigation he concocted the story in the last week?

 

[notsure]

Wouldn't that fall into the category of the right to remain silent? It was stated by VT that under advice of counsel he did not answer many questions. It was his right to take the stand and answer those questions, but can it be said that because he did not provide this information to police during the investigation he concocted the story in the last week?

It can't be proven either way. All the jury have to go on is his track record for telling the truth from the moment he was apprehended onwards. Actually, they have evidence of how he behaved before he was apprehended as well.

 

[goldielox]

Murder I'd say; you know when you stab someone in the chest area from front OR back that there is a very good chance of fatal injury.

What I thought too at the time.

The verdict was manslaughter. And he got given 5 years for it.

 

[Sammyme]

To be fair, the jury are probably not as au fait with murder cases as some people on this forum might be.

It's easy to think that planning and premeditation are needed to prove murder. It's also a lot easier to go for a guilty verdict if you can get your head around "why" he killed her. In this case, there is no clear motive. The prosecution have suggested it was sexually motivated but there is no undeniable proof of that.

The judge will no doubt explain all about state of mind at the point he killed her, what is meant by "intent", what would a reasonable and sober person think etc etc

The jury will only hear that explanation once before they go into deliberation. Unless there are people amongst those 12 who can keep the group focussed on the crucial point, I suspect that some may want to err on the side of "reasonable doubt" simply because they find it impossible to reconcile why it happened

Especially if the defence lawyer keeps banging on about planning and premeditation and telling you that she is dead because of pure chance.

Motive is often important because a defendant isn't definitely known to have killed and this has to be proved - i.e. that it was this person and not someone else who killed the victim. In this case, this doesn't apply because we know he killed her. The question here is whether we can say from his actions and all the evidence that he killed her with intent. We don't need to know the motive for that.
And even in the cases where you have to prove who the killer was, establishing a motive isn't a requirement. There have been convictions for murder where the motive has never been known.

 

[goldielox]

Another point I'been pondering over in respect to the time Jo arrived home and the screams which were heard.

Its been said that the screams which were heard were heard no later than 845pm.

There's a receipt (from Tesco?) with a timestamp of 840pm on it. She passed the Hop House pub at 844pm. The jury took 7 minutes to walk from the Hop House to Jo's flat (2 minutes faster than the 9 minutes Google states the walk should take).

So Jo can't have made it back to her door until at least 5 minutes later than when those screams were reported to have been heard.

The prosecution has made much of those screams. I still don't think the screams heard were from Jo. How can they have been? Jo was still walking home when they were heard.

 

[aneurin]

Wouldn't that fall into the category of the right to remain silent? It was stated by VT that under advice of counsel he did not answer many questions. It was his right to take the stand and answer those questions, but can it be said that because he did not provide this information to police during the investigation he concocted the story in the last week?

It's not that he failed to provide this information to police when questioned, but that he failed to provide this information in his defence statement which was submitted to the court as part of the PACM hearing.

 

[bos]

I'm not posted this to debate the legal definition of murder, or ask your opinion on the case, but wish to know what you thought of WC's closing statement and do you think any members of the jury found it compelling or effective, and could it swing them either way?

*I have highlighted for easier reading only*

***

WC began by stating there’s nothing to like about VT and he doesn’t deserve our sympathy.

Then he talked about the prosecution’s case.

He said there’s no proof VT knew when JY returned home, or that he knew she was home alone, or that GR was away.

Then he stated there was no proof of the following:

Forced entry
The attack being sexually motivated
Screams heard were definitively JY’s

WC said JY’s injuries were 'extremely minor', ‘superficial’ , leaving aside the neck and the nose, and no one ever saw any injuries on VT.

He said it could have been as short as 10 seconds - or as long as 45.

''20 seconds can seem a long time when stood in court - but it's just a flash in a quick moving situation.''

He said JY did not die from oxygen starvation but heart failure caused by an obstruction of airways,

and

VT’s inability to recall details didn’t help his case, but it's not surprising or unusual for people to be unable to recall events during a traumatic time.

Then he asked, ‘’Are you able to say as his jury that the prosecution have proved to you that he intended to kill.
"Could anyone be sure that he intended to kill her?"

He closed by saying:

‘’Of course afterward VT's behaviour was utterly disgraceful and it is not going to be justified by me, but VT’s actions after JY’s death do not alter what was in his mind at the time of the killing.’’
***
Comments please?

I think he did enough to cause reasonable doubt that it was murder; it was far more factual than the pros case imo. It depends on the calibre of the jury really.

 

[weeeva]

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.[/QUOTE

Well said Fluttershy. I tried to type out a similar post last night it took me ages and then I lost the d****d thing, so I gave up.
You put it across in 2 small paragraphs.
Would you mind if I copied your post to another blog. I will not take the credit for it, promise.

 

[bos]

Wouldn't that fall into the category of the right to remain silent? It was stated by VT that under advice of counsel he did not answer many questions. It was his right to take the stand and answer those questions, but can it be said that because he did not provide this information to police during the investigation he concocted the story in the last week?

That was during the initial interviews as I understood it, since then he'll have made further statements the most recent of which I believe was made on 22nd September.

 

[goldielox]

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.[/QUOTE

Well said Fluttershy. I tried to type out a similar post last night it took me ages and then I lost the d****d thing, so I gave up.
You put it across in 2 small paragraphs.
Would you mind if I copied your post to another blog. I will not take the credit for it, promise.

Yep, putting actual murder aside for a moment, its bad enough that the g/f finds out they've made a pass at another woman. Worse still if it's been an aggressive and/or violent pass ...and to the next door neighbour!

He had to silence her didn't he. He'd no doubt done enough to merit her involving the police if she was left alive.

 

[bos]

Another point I'been pondering over in respect to the time Jo arrived home and the screams which were heard.

Its been said that the screams which were heard were heard no later than 845pm.

There's a receipt (from Tesco?) with a timestamp of 840pm on it. She passed the Hop House pub at 844pm. The jury took 7 minutes to walk from the Hop House to Jo's flat (2 minutes faster than the 9 minutes Google states the walk should take).

So Jo can't have made it back to her door until at least 5 minutes later than when those screams were reported to have been heard.

The prosecution has made much of those screams. I still don't think the screams heard were from Jo. How can they have been? Jo was still walking home when they were heard.

I need to go back & look at the initial days of the trial, but what you say tallys with my recollection & is part of the reason that I queried the Prosecution's assertion at summing up that death was about 8.49pm.

 

[Sammyme]

Yes, but nobody seems to know where in the range. It is obvious that pressing the neck for one second is unlikely to kill, and that pressing it for a long time is likely to do so. Agreed that he should not have been doing it all, but given that he did, how should he have known when to stop?

I am frankly annoyed by people here who claim that because he has a Ph.D he should be clever enough to know these things. I have a Ph.D (in early 13th-century musical notation) and I know for certain that my studies didn't include the length of time it takes to strangle a young woman.

On the contrary, I would have assumed that the body going limp is a sign that the victim has passed out (like a Victorian woman in need of smelling salts) and that it is time to stop. I had no idea that strangulation can, as in JY's case, cause death from heart attack rather than from asphyxiation - and I'm a well-educated person in later life - at least the ordinary "man in the street" that the courts sometimes refer to.

All of this is important because, if VT's intention was murder, I'd not have expected him to stop at what could have merely been a faint, but to make sure the job was done properly by further physical assault.



That's not what the law says. Intention is the key issue.

If you ignore faulty electrical wiring in your ice-cream shop, and a customer dies through electrocution when opening a fridge door, you will not be charged with murder because there was no intention to kill. There was gross negligence, perhaps recklessness, quite possibly manslaughter, but there was no intent to kill.



Accepted.



Agreed. What I cannot honestly say is at which precise second VT should have made this realisation.



And, as I say, I am not aware of how long it takes to strangle someone to death (was it aneurin who said that the sheep he strangled took much longer than he expected?), nor was I aware that a heart attack might bring life to an end much more quickly than one might expect strangulation to take.

(For avoidance of doubt, I'm not trying to defend VT, but neither am I one of those posting here saying I hope he gets done for murder: nothing on this earth can now help JY, but there is no point in compounding the tragedy by falsely convicting VT for murder, if that was not his intention).

I don't know what the question about knowing when to stop has to do with it. In any case he didn't stop until she was dead. He knew well enough to do that. If you shut off someone's mouth and simultaneously press their neck for however long you will know they are going to die and you will know when they stop struggling for breath and life, when they stop breathing, when they die. There is no reason to get annoyed with people saying he has a Ph D and he is intelligent enough to know that. He is well educated, he is not unintelligent or mentally deficient, as many criminals are. Having faulty wiring in your shop is not like strangling someone. Holding their hand to a faulty electric wire would be more like. There is no danger of falsely convicting VT for murder.

 

[notsure]

Let me get this straight: if I go next door and kill my neighbour intentionally, as long as I deny that I intended to do it, and there are no witnesses, and nobody knows my motivation, I can get away with murder? I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often. We have to take the killer's word for what happened. Amazing!

 

[weeeva]

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.

Yes Fluttershy. If only he had taken your first option, so many hearts would not be broken.