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

[Clio]

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?

If he had said nothing and the CPS thought they had enough evidence that he had killed her, he would still have been charged with murder.

Initially VT did try to deny everything. It was only at the point that it became glaringly obvious to him that could no longer claim it wasn't he who had killed her did he enter a plea of guilty to manslaughter. He did this as a defence to the murder charge. i.e ok I killed her but I didn't mean to

It is now down to the jury to decide if he meant to kill her or not

 

[edgedweller]

Can we therefore take it that you do not think it is possible for someone merely to pass out (which also causes limpness) under those circumstances?

Thanks for your other points.

If she HAD just passed out, he wouldn't know because he made no attempt to help or resuscitate her, did he? He just assumed she was dead and left her on the bed. If that was me, and I'd REALLY not meant to seriously harm or kill someone, yet there they were at my feet showing all the signs of being dead, I would be shaking them, checking their breathing, ringing 999. The sheer panic of having KILLED somebody would overtake everything.

 

[Sammyme]

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 have read (possibly on this forum) that the last time shown in Tesco was
8 33 pm.

I've never understood this Hop House thing. When I looked at a map to see her route home, it shows that the Hop House is on another road that loops around and would be a detour from the straight road home from Tesco to Canynge Road.

If Tesco was her last stop at 8 33 pm and she took the straight road home, she would be home around 8 40 pm, I think.

 

[weeeva]

On the question of the definition of intent, I've realised that I've managed to confuse myself in the labyrinth of homicide. (In particular I thought that the Dawson case was relevant, which it isn't really.)

Proof of criminal intent is defined in s8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, as follows:-

A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,—

(a)shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but

(b)shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.



What is referred to as the model guidance was laid down in R v Nedrick and confirmed by R v Woolin:-

if the jury are satisfied that at the material time the defendant recognised that death or serious harm would be virtually certain (barring some unforeseen intervention) to result from his voluntary act, then that is a fact from which they may find it easy to infer that he intended to kill or do serious bodily harm, even though he may not have had any desire to achieve that result.

Personally I have absolutely no problem in accepting that "death or serious harm" was indeed "virtually certain" as a result of VT's "voluntary act" in grasping JY around the throat and applying pressure until she "went limp", and therefore I find it easy to infer that he intended to kill or do serious bodily harm, irrespective of whether or not he had the desire to achieve that result.

Seems really interesting.
I just wish I could understand all this stuff. I have to read about 100 times, and even then I struggle with it.
Why can't they write in plain English for interested thick people like me?

 

[Luna15]

I have read (possibly on this forum) that the last time shown in Tesco was
8 33 pm.

I've never understood this Hop House thing. When I looked at a map to see her route home, it shows that the Hop House is on another road that loops around and would be a detour from the straight road home from Tesco to Canynge Road.

If Tesco was her last stop at 8 33 pm and she took the straight road home, she would be home around 8 40 pm, I think.

rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
NL 'we know JY bought that pizza at 20:31

 

[Luna15]

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.

Tabak said he went back to Yeates' flat, switched off the oven and television and picked up a pizza that she had bought on the way home that night and one of her socks that had fallen off. He took them to his flat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/20/joanna-yeates-killer-speaks-crime

 

[Sammyme]

rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
NL 'we know JY bought that pizza at 20:31

That's the pizza. The latest time she was recorded in Tesco is what I was talking about.

 

[bos]

rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
NL 'we know JY bought that pizza at 20:31

Thankyou! Tweets from the beginning of the trial seem to have disappeared. I think there is possibly some confusion between what the press published re times when Joanna first disappeared & what the actual times were.

 

[Luna15]

Thankyou! Tweets from the beginning of the trial seem to have disappeared. I think there is possibly some confusion between what the press published re times when Joanna first disappeared & what the actual times were.

The Facebook Discussion Group have them all from the beginning of the trial.... not sure if you have to have a Facebook account to access them:-

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=128719860525280&topic=782

 

[Luna15]

That's the pizza. The latest time she was recorded in Tesco is what I was talking about.

sorry Sammyme I'm confused - she bought the pizza in Tescos and left straightafter? If she purchased it at 20:31, the latest she'd be out of there is 20:32...

 

[Curious Alice]

Tabak said he went back to Yeates' flat, switched off the oven and television and picked up a pizza that she had bought on the way home that night and one of her socks that had fallen off. He took them to his flat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/20/joanna-yeates-killer-speaks-crime

It just jumped right off her foot whilst he was next door ? :crazy:

 

[Sammyme]

sorry Sammyme I'm confused - she bought the pizza in Tescos and left straightafter? If she purchased it at 20:31, the latest she'd be out of there is 20:32...

Luna, the time her purchase was rung up is, you say, 20 31 pm; the last time she was recorded on Tesco CCTV was 20 33 pm. I don't see any problem about those times.

 

[Curious Alice]

Quick question for those of you that are better versed in the law than I am: If I was a juror,and did not generally believe VT's testimony and the case put forward by the defence, but the Pros have not proved their allegations 100% - would I be directed to find VT not guilty of Murder ?

(I'm doing a pro's and cons list based on the information we have)

 

[weeeva]

"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.

If this is true, and VT only mentioned these remarks for the first time while he was on the stand, then there is something not right about this man.
Mr. Lickley in his summing up said that VT was shrewd, well he is not very shrewd if this is what he has done.
I wonder if this was what all the long legal talks were about.

 

[Luna15]

Luna, the time her purchase was rung up is, you say, 20 31 pm; the last time she was recorded on Tesco CCTV was 20 33 pm. I don't see any problem about those times.

so say it took even ten minutes to get home (icy conditions) she could be in around 20:43 - so the screams heard around 21:00 could be her? do you agree?

 

[Fluttershy]

I'm sorry, this is really long, but the laws regarding Voluntary Manslaughter changed in 2009 with the introduction of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and it's been a while since I studied UK law so I thought I'd try to sum it up for myself and thought that others might find it useful. I'm not a lawyer and I can't guarantee that it's completely correct.

For Murder to be proven in the UK the following has to be satisfied:
where a person:

of sound mind and discretion
unlawfully kills
any reasonable creature (human being);
in being
under the Queen's Peace;
with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).
For the defendant to intend that harm, they must be abe to forsee it.
To prove foresight, the jury must decide:
(a) was death or very serious injury a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act?
(b) did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act?
As far as I'm aware, the defence haven't argued that VT is insane, so the only issue with the definition in this case is whether he intended JY to die or suffer GBH.

In the UK, murder may be reduced to (voluntary) manslaughter if diminished responsibility, loss of control or suicide pact is involved.

In diminished responisibility, your mind has ceased to function in the way that the average person's mind would, either from a medical condition, injury or psychiatric episode. Essentially, you have lost the ability to understand that your actions are wrong and are likely to hurt or kill, and/or you have lost the means to stop yourself from acting and/or you have lost the ability to make rational decisions based on your circumstances. This episode might be temporary, and is not the same as pleading insanity. This is the "battered wife syndrome" defense.

There is also the defense of "loss of control" previously "provocation". This is where the actions or words of either your victim or another cause you to lose control of your actions. The loss of control does not have to be instant, but a person of similar age and gender to yourself must be likely to be similarly affected by the provocation. Threats of violence do not form provocation, but come under self-defence.

Suicide Pact is not relevant to this case.

There is also Unlawful Act (Involuntary) Manslaughter. This is where death occurs due to the defendant's illegal action, which the reasonable man in the street is able to forsee causing death or some form of harm. The act has to be committed deliberately.

VT has definitely committed Unlawful Act (Involuntary) Manslaughter, IMO. I think most people would agree that squeezing someone's neck is likely to hurt them and that it is almost impossible to accidentally start squeezing someone's neck. If the jury decide that VT could forsee that his actions were likely to cause GBH or death then they will find him guilty of murder.

 

[Luna15]

rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
Greg Reardon, Jo's boyfriend, shaking his head in the public gallery as Bill Clegg QC puts his case to the jury.

I wonder if he remembers that it is one year ago today that they moved into that flat

They had previously lived together in the Bristol suburb of Westbury Park before moving to Clifton on October 25, the court heard) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...angled-Joanna-Yeates-to-stop-her-screams.html

 

[bananas76]

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!

That's exactly how this trial looks to me.
I don't know much, if anything about law but he bloody well murdered her, end of.:maddening:

 

[Sammyme]

so say it took even ten minutes to get home (icy conditions) she could be in around 20:53 - so the screams heard around 21:00 could be her? do you agree?

Oops! That would be 20 43 pm.

Mrs Lehman arrived at No 53 between 8 45 and 9 00 pm, according to her hosts.

I believe that Mrs Lehman heard Joanna's screams. That, I think, is the key evidence.

 

[Luna15]

Oops! That would be 20 43 pm.

Mrs Lehman arrived at No 53 between 8 45 and 9 00 pm, according to her hosts.

I believe that Mrs Lehman heard Joanna's screams. That, I think, is the key evidence.

yes I corrected it afterwards - it's been a long day and I have a right headache!!

Yes I think Mrs Lehman heard JY's screams too, and I hope the jury can count better than me!!