Curious Alice
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 2
Of course not, but death can occur many ways and the manner of death is surely of consequence in the eyes of the law.
GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #16
- Thread starter otto
- Start date
- Status
Of course not, but death can occur many ways and the manner of death is surely of consequence in the eyes of the law.
Luna15
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 5
I fail to see how that covers him for his sudden recollections that he failed to submit before he was stood in the witness box.
It would be interesting to know just how many lies he told, wouldn't it?
Hope Jo and her family get justice.
The language lawyers use - along with their deflection tactics - can confuse jurors too.
They use it every day and know what they mean by it but when I see things they've said, such as "It goes to intent", hm...it goes, does it? I wonder what on earth a juror will understand by that. Or the judge today saying "There is no contest that the bruises must have happened while Joanna was alive". Hm...you'd have to work your way around that verbiage to figure it if it meant they did or they didn't. He could have said, "They agree that they must have happened while Joanna was alive." That would be clear.
They use it every day and know what they mean by it but when I see things they've said, such as "It goes to intent", hm...it goes, does it? I wonder what on earth a juror will understand by that. Or the judge today saying "There is no contest that the bruises must have happened while Joanna was alive". Hm...you'd have to work your way around that verbiage to figure it if it meant they did or they didn't. He could have said, "They agree that they must have happened while Joanna was alive." That would be clear.
Luna15
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 5
stevenmorris20 steven morris
Judge tells jury that injuries were caused to both sides of Jo Yeates' head while she was alive
also important
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 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.
Luna15
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 5
BOTTOM UP
Rupert Evelyn
Judge 'you may give the lies such weight as you think appropriate as supporting the proescution's case'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge quoting tabak 'i was stupidly hoping that the police didn't have enough evidence and that they would let me go'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge 'you must not assume that because he lied he must guilty. You must consider why he lied'Rupert Evelyn
Judge 'the fact that he lied may affect your assessment of him as to whether he's a truthful witness'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge says Tabak agrees one of his statements is a 'careful deception'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge 'the defendant admits that he told a series of calculated lies to the police'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge says he's not going to remind the jury in any 'great detail' of the defendant's conduct after the killing
Rupert Evelyn
judge says to jury they may want to put evidence 'in the scales' when they deliberate
Rupert Evelyn
Judge says Greg told the court the smirnoff apron in the hallway was 'very out of place'
Rupert Evelyn
Greg said the door to their flat had been difficult to shut. The blind in the kitchen window was impossible to shut.
Rupert Evelyn
Judge reminding jury of statements from Greg Reardon, Jo's boyfriend.
Rupert Evelyn
Judge 'you may give the lies such weight as you think appropriate as supporting the proescution's case'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge quoting tabak 'i was stupidly hoping that the police didn't have enough evidence and that they would let me go'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge 'you must not assume that because he lied he must guilty. You must consider why he lied'Rupert Evelyn
Judge 'the fact that he lied may affect your assessment of him as to whether he's a truthful witness'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge says Tabak agrees one of his statements is a 'careful deception'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge 'the defendant admits that he told a series of calculated lies to the police'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge says he's not going to remind the jury in any 'great detail' of the defendant's conduct after the killing
Rupert Evelyn
judge says to jury they may want to put evidence 'in the scales' when they deliberate
Rupert Evelyn
Judge says Greg told the court the smirnoff apron in the hallway was 'very out of place'
Rupert Evelyn
Greg said the door to their flat had been difficult to shut. The blind in the kitchen window was impossible to shut.
Rupert Evelyn
Judge reminding jury of statements from Greg Reardon, Jo's boyfriend.
Precisely : it is crystal clear that the jury may draw adverse inferences from his tendentious silence, especially in view of the fact that he later "remembered" so many details that he thought useful to saving his hide and nothing he thought might go against him.
Curious Alice
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 2
Maybe he is gently asking jury to consider that the lies/story changed in order to fit with known evidence and scenario ?
Luna15
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 5
BOTTOM UP
Rupert Evelyn
Judge '1st time there was a mention of the kiss was in Mr Clegg's opening speech. The 1st mention of flirt comment were in Tabak's evidence'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge says prosecution believes Defence statement is important because it fails to mention flirty comment and kiss
Rupert Evelyn
Judge not pointing jury towards Tabak's defence case statement and the subsequent addendum
Rupert Evelyn
Judge 'it will be open to you to conclude that he has invented his account'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge talking about Tabak's repeated 'no comment' when being interviewed by the police
Luna15
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 5
probably morelike a 'discreet cough'...
Did he wink again here?
It is a matter for you to decide if he tailored or, worse, invented his evidence.
Luna15
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 5
BOTTOM UP
Rupert Evelyn
Time is 12.34 and the jury have retired to consider their verdict.
Rupert Evelyn
Judge says jury must endeavour to reach a unanimous verdict.
Rupert Evelyn
Judge says if the jury is sure of intent their verdict will be 'guilty'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge 'the defendant accepts he could have let her go....he accepts he could have resucitated her'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge talks about length of time of the strangulation. suggests to jury 'the neck is a vulnerable area' and defendant would have known this
Rupert Evelyn
Judge says he's approaching the conclusion. 'at the heart of the case is the evidence of what happened in flat 1 on that fateful evening'
Rupert Evelyn
Time is 12.34 and the jury have retired to consider their verdict.
Rupert Evelyn
Judge says jury must endeavour to reach a unanimous verdict.
Rupert Evelyn
Judge says if the jury is sure of intent their verdict will be 'guilty'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge 'the defendant accepts he could have let her go....he accepts he could have resucitated her'
Rupert Evelyn
Judge talks about length of time of the strangulation. suggests to jury 'the neck is a vulnerable area' and defendant would have known this
Rupert Evelyn
Judge says he's approaching the conclusion. 'at the heart of the case is the evidence of what happened in flat 1 on that fateful evening'
Luna15
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 5
I think his eye must have developed a nervous twitch here
skynewsgatherer Harriet Tolputt
Tabak says he took legal advice not to answer police questions. Judge says the jury must look at whether this was a "convenient shield".
kynewsgatherer Harriet Tolputt
Jury told it is a legal requirement for both sides "to put their cards on the table" before a trial.
skynewsgatherer Harriet Tolputt
Tabak was required in his defence statement to lay out the points he would rely on during the trial.
skynewsgatherer Harriet Tolputt
Tabak signed his defence statement, and also submitted an add on statement. The pros says that they don't list everything he relied on.
skynewsgatherer Harriet Tolputt
Statement omits details of Tabak's move to kiss Joanna and claims that Joanna was flirting with him.
SkyNewsWebster Isabel Webster
Is "a matter for jury to decide" if #Tabak has tailored/invented his account. Must decide if many omissions from statement are significant.
Curious Alice
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 2
The Judges summing up is excellent, very clear IMO, and if I was a wavering juror up until this point, I would now be finding VT guilty.
Redgoblin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Messages
- 457
- Reaction score
- 405
Excellent first post.:fireworks2:
I've been thinking perhaps this would make a reasonable argument for while now.
I remember a 'friend of a friend' of mine who got sent down for a drug supply offence. He wouldn't grass on his American suppliers, who at the time were sending LSD sheets through the mail. Anyway he said, if he did tell LE about the people further up in the supply chain he would be a dead man.
I was thinking for a while it could of been a case of mistaken identity and that VT could of been supplying and for some reason his girlfriend TM could of been targeted. He was apparently in LA for a 5 weeks before this happened.
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 94
- Guests online
- 2,440
- Total visitors
- 2,534