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

[Curious Alice]

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.

So the prosecution account ties it in with the screams (but is perhaps at odds with the time it takes Jo to get home?)

If we accept the latter time as suggested by the defence was the time of death, what actual difference does the time make to the fact that she was strangled and died at the hands of VT ?

 

[goldielox]

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!

Are your neighbours that bad? :crazy:

 

[notsure]

Are your neighbours that bad? :crazy:

I dunno! :floorlaugh:

 

[edgedweller]

Would you agree that if I put my hands around your neck and pressed for one second, it is highly unlikely that you would even pass out, let alone die?

So what if I pressed for five seconds? Would that do it? Or would it need ten seconds? Or perhaps 20 seconds?

These things are not clear cut, and the court can hardly conduct an experiment to find how long it would take.

Do you not see the difficulty?

But why are you pressing my neck? To stop me screaming? Why on earth would you press someone's neck to stop them screaming - surely it would make them panic and make them try to scream more??? I cannot understand why VT thinks that squeezing someone's neck is a reasonable thing to do to stop them screaming - it just makes no sense. Hand over mouth yes, I can believe it, even though it's highly disrespectful and he should've just apologised and left (if the story about the attempted kiss/gentle pass is true).

I don't have a PhD and I know to never put my hands around someone's neck unless I'm being very gentle and careful. I say it constantly to my children "don't put things around your neck!" I just don't buy the "I'm panicking, let me throttle you - oh whoops you've gone limp" story.

 

[Firefly75]

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldielox
Are your neighbours that bad?

I dunno!

Are you just saying that so that you can claim there was no intent and no premeditation? :floorlaugh:

 

[Luna15]

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!

I'd wait and see what the jury come back with in this case before you chance your luck.

So the prosecution account ties it in with the screams (but is perhaps at odds with the time it takes Jo to get home?)

If we accept the latter time as suggested by the defence was the time of death, what actual difference does the time make to the fact that she was strangled and died at the hands of VT ?

I guess to show that it wasn't pre-planned - he doesn't want us to think he was lying in wait for her to come home and then he pounced - there's got to be enough time to have a cosy little chat first, just enough time for her to make her "flirty comment", and for him to 'make a pass' before he strangles her to death for his little faux pas.

 

[edgedweller]

And what about

Def: Missing sock #JoYeates? She may have taken it off because she had a hole in her boot.

Did she? When was this stated? So her sock might've been wet and cold... OK, I can understand taking one sock off - but to only keep one sock on for 45 minutes, as the defence states she was in the flat for before she died? NO. Not on a cold night - you would either take both off and put slippers on, or put fresh socks on. I think the sock fell off en route and he realised it would be a clue.

 

[edgedweller]

BeebJournalist Andrew Plant
#Tabak defence: "her apron was just by the door, rolled up. She'd said she was going to bake. She'd got a recipe from the Internet".

just as her Mum had said - OMG if he's used her grieving mothers words if his defence.....

So when did she download the recipe? She might've looked it up days before. Have we ever been told?

 

[edgedweller]

"She was not in a rush and she was going nowhere," says Clegg.

But she hadn't eaten since 1pm! She would've been starving! I can't believe she would get in from a cold walk home of nearly an hour, and faff about for 30-45 mins before getting herself some food. (If it were me I'd've got myself a snack in the pub or in one of the supermarkets to scoff on the way). I think her main objective once she got in would be to get that pizza in the oven.

 

[otto]

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.

I think he has a right to remain silent when being questioned by police and that exercising that right cannot be used against him. The fact that the prosecution is suggesting the information he provided during testimony is concocted because he exercised his right to remain silent during the investigation isn't quite right.

 

[otto]

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.

The jury will certainly pay attention to the timeline. If the prosecution claims that Joanna was in two places at the same time, then the screams will be excluded as connected with the murder. It would have been better for the prosecution to move the screams a little later in the timeline and suggest that witnesses were 5-10 minutes off with the time of the screams.

 

[goldielox]

So the prosecution account ties it in with the screams (but is perhaps at odds with the time it takes Jo to get home?)

If we accept the latter time as suggested by the defence was the time of death, what actual difference does the time make to the fact that she was strangled and died at the hands of VT ?

Well, the prosecution surmise that as soon as she got home he forced his way in with sex in mind. A violent struggle ensued,he possibly molested her and then intentionally killed her. All in the space of 30 minutes, and then cooly sent his g/f a text. That's a scenario that fits with murder. It also would lead to a more severe sentence too if the sentence is based on the prosecution's version - believed forced entry/sexual element.

 

[otto]

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.

Is there an obligation by the defendant to disclose all details of the crime in a defence statement, or is there an option for the defendant to disclose some details in his defence statement and additional details during testimony?

 

[Luna15]

So when did she download the recipe? She might've looked it up days before. Have we ever been told?

Mrs Yeates, 58, said her daughter had been busily preparing for Christmas and had been planning to make mince pies at the weekend, printing out a recipe from the internet and tucking it into her diary.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/LET-COME/story-11292062-detail/story.html

the fact that it was tucked in her diary suggests to me that it was before that evening at least - the fact that VT states JY told him that during their cosy little chat enrages me.... I remember how upset her mum was recalling that event - I think she was touched the JY had gone to the trouble of finding a recipe and downloading it.... she appeared touched that her daughter had done as she'd asked...

 

[weeeva]

(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).

Yes veggiefan agreed. I can understand those close to JY hoping for a murder verdict, but those of us with a clear head and not worn down with grief, should just hope that justice prevails.

 

[goldielox]

Did she? When was this stated? So her sock might've been wet and cold... OK, I can understand taking one sock off - but to only keep one sock on for 45 minutes, as the defence states she was in the flat for before she died? NO. Not on a cold night - you would either take both off and put slippers on, or put fresh socks on. I think the sock fell off en route and he realised it would be a clue.

I thought VT had himself stated that the sock came off as he was moving the body? I can't recall him saying exactly where the sock came off (ie at the flat or LL) but I'm sure he did say the sock came off her then. If so I don't get why the defence suggested she took the sock off herself.

 

[edgedweller]

Which was rather my point. If you must do something potentially dangerous, how do you know when to stop?

MUST? Why MUST he do it? Not many people faced with a distressed screaming woman would then put their hands around her throat, would they???

 

[otto]

Well, the prosecution surmise that as soon as she got home he forced his way in with sex in mind. A violent struggle ensued,he possibly molested her and then intentionally killed her. All in the space of 30 minutes, and then cooly sent his g/f a text. That's a scenario that fits with murder. It also would lead to a more severe sentence too if the sentence is based on the prosecution's version - believed forced entry/sexual element.

If the main points are that murder occurred in 20 seconds (we usually hear that a strangulation murder can take 3-4 minutes), that he was invited in, that there was no scream, that the injuries are relatively minor (wrist injuries could be associated with dragging her to the bedroom or when he allegedly dropped her on the path), that the clothing were disshevelled during transportation of the body, then I think it's a case of manslaughter. If the main points are that the murder occurred over a longer period of time or that everyone should know that strangulation occurs in 20 seconds, that there was a struggle, that he forced his way in, that she screamed, that the wrist injuries and bleeding nose were part of the assault, that there was a sexual assault, then it will be murder. I think that if I were on the jury, I would be inclined towards manslaughter as sexual assault, forced entry, expectation that death occurs in 20 seconds, and screams have not been proven ... in my humble opinion.

 

[otto]

I thought VT had himself stated that the sock came off as he was moving the body? I can't recall him saying exactly where the sock came off (ie at the flat or LL) but I'm sure he did say the sock came off her then. If so I don't get why the defence suggested she took the sock off herself.

I recall that as well ... it seems that VT and his lawyer are not on the same page.

 

[goldielox]

Is there an obligation by the defendant to disclose all details of the crime in a defence statement, or is there an option for the defendant to disclose some details in his defence statement and additional details during testimony?

Well, the statement you give to your own lawyer is the basis of the defence you'll use in court. Your lawyer obviously doesn't want any nasty surprises in court ie when the defendant veers off his own "script" like VT did, so I'd imagine Clegg is rather peed off with his client over that one.