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

[veggiefan]

rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
Sat in lobby waiting.......

I hope he's got a good long novel with him!

 

[edgedweller]

Would love to be a fly on the wall in the jury room...

 

[Nausicaa]

I hope he's got a good long novel with him!

Crime and Punishment ?

 

[Trouble007]

I hope he's got a good long novel with him!

perhaps he can pass it on to VT when hes finished

 

[Sammyme]

:greetings:

Interesting post - this has not been a straightforward case has it ?

Don't be too harsh on the QC's - they are limited by the system, the law and by best practise on what they can say and how they present it in court. The UK courtroom does not often see a dramatic, Perry Mason performance, and I think this case is a little different because it is already established that he killed her, it's just the line between m/slaughter and murder that had to be shown. [Edit: have a look at the post above for a great example of the QC for the Prosecution slaying VT with words - subtle as a velvet hammer)

I think both sides elect to keep the evidence as sparce and simple as will serve their purpose, much of the "is this relevant" negotiations have gone on behind the scenes, during discussion of points of law, evidence that is negated by other evidence etc. I think this intent has been quite well served, as the Judges summing up was fair, clear and straightforward.

The murky story (pink pigs/blue pigs) was inevitable, with VT witholding important declarations even up to the trial and with Jo dead, and limited forensic evidence - who can tell her version of the story ? Will we ever know why he throttled her to death ?

It is my personal opinion that this case would make much more sense if VT had been truthful throughout, it is his lies and version(s) of events that make no sense.

I don't buy into a more elaborate back story of cover ups though. VT himself referred to the killer as a detached person - I strongly believe he was talking about himself.

Although I think of him more with a sharp pointed implement - a needle for example. He was an excellent needler. As a fighter I'd call him a jabber. The one on the other side I see as more of a dirty fighter. Also a strutter.

 

[Trouble007]

... praying for JUSTICE.

Justice indeed, i cannot get over his 80 dunnos and leaving that poor family forever wondering, not to mention trying to tarnish her good nature, i hope he gets attacked in jail and see's what its really like to have someone get the upperhand on someone weaker than themselves!

 

[bos]

rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
Sat in lobby waiting.......

They're probably still deciding on a foreman; wonder if they'll manage before teabreak?

Don't envy the jury I must say! I keep changing my opinion; I wasn't sure if the prosecution had done enough to prove anything but re intent, putting your hands around someone's neck & squeezing isn't an involuntary reflex action even though it may happen quickly. Why would you choose to put your hands round someone's neck like that? The most obvious quick reaction to stop screaming is covering a mouth (which the evidence would point to that he did).

 

[Neurotripsy]

Glad you made it Neurotripsy - will you go tomorrow if they dont return their verdict today? can you say (in your opinion obviously) whether the jury were concentrating on the summing up?

Unfortunately not, just started five hour coach journey home. Would have liked to stay but the friend I went with has a hospital appointment tomorrow that she can't miss. I seem to jinx everything anyway so if we stayed 'til the end of the week you could guarantee the verdict would come next week, lol!

Every one of them was paying rapt attention throughout, so it seems my worries from yesterday may have thankfully been unfounded! I really don't see how they can go for manslaughter- after such a concise and effective list of instructions and guidance I'll be very surprised if they come back with a not guilty verdict. Fingers crossed!

 

[bos]

Crime and Punishment ?

:floorlaugh:

 

[edgedweller]

Unfortunately not, just started five hour coach journey home. Would have liked to stay but the friend I went with has a hospital appointment tomorrow that she can't miss. I seem to jinx everything anyway so if we stayed 'til the end of the week you could guarantee the verdict would come next week, lol!

Every one of them was paying rapt attention throughout, so it seems my worries from yesterday may have thankfully been unfounded! I really don't see how they can go for manslaughter- after such a concise and effective list of instructions and guidance I'll be very surprised if they come back with a not guilty verdict. Fingers crossed!

From the tweets it was hard to see what he was directing, but most of the journalists seem to have inferred that he's directed them towards murder.... so we'll see.

 

[Curious Alice]

Got the fright of my life this morning during the judge's instructions, the first time I turned to look at VT he made eye-contact with me (not to sound dramatic but I could literally feel the shiver running down my spine), really wasn't expecting that as he tends to look at the public gallery through his fingers and even that's once per session at the most!

I wonder if he was more curious to look at the gallery to assess peoples reactions to him, see the look on their faces, seeking sympathy or disdain. He must be bricking it.

 

[Curious Alice]

I think WC was giving it a go with the theatrics...

Mr Clegg repeatedly slammed his hand down on the desk while facing the jury, to ram home his points.

http://swns.com/vincent-tabak-murder-trial-the-defences-argument-251726.html

Possibly. Wasn't he the one that sat all cosy and relaxed on the desk during his closing speech ? Very informal, and I thought disrespectful to the court.

I have a very warped view of legal representatives (I mean, I believed in Elle Woods in Legally Blonde :floorlaugh

 

[Curious Alice]

Unfortunately not, just started five hour coach journey home. Would have liked to stay but the friend I went with has a hospital appointment tomorrow that she can't miss. I seem to jinx everything anyway so if we stayed 'til the end of the week you could guarantee the verdict would come next week, lol!

Every one of them was paying rapt attention throughout, so it seems my worries from yesterday may have thankfully been unfounded! I really don't see how they can go for manslaughter- after such a concise and effective list of instructions and guidance I'll be very surprised if they come back with a not guilty verdict. Fingers crossed!

Thanks for your reports, I've found it very interesting and as frustrating as it must be for you to keep certain matters confidential, I also admire your restraint and discretion as required by the court and the legal process.

Much appreciated.:aktion:

 

[Sammyme]

Justice indeed, i cannot get over his 80 dunnos and leaving that poor family forever wondering, not to mention trying to tarnish her good nature, i hope he gets attacked in jail and see's what its really like to have someone get the upperhand on someone weaker than themselves!

That's the cowardice of the act that he did. He did it because he could. He risked nothing: didn't have to stand and fight, hold ground, take punishment and fight back against an equal. There was nothing of that. It wasn't an equal fight. A large man attacked a woman because he knew he could. She didn't have a chance and he didn't care. Her life meant nothing. I call him coward.

 

[Sammyme]

They're probably still deciding on a foreman; wonder if they'll manage before teabreak?

Don't envy the jury I must say! I keep changing my opinion; I wasn't sure if the prosecution had done enough to prove anything but re intent, putting your hands around someone's neck & squeezing isn't an involuntary reflex action even though it may happen quickly. Why would you choose to put your hands round someone's neck like that? The most obvious quick reaction to do that is covering a mouth (which the evidence would point to that he did).

He did both. What does that tell you? (rhetorical question). It tells me a lot.

 

[Curious Alice]

He did both. What does that tell you? (rhetorical question). It tells me a lot.

Stop breathing, not stop screaming = intent.

 

[Sammyme]

Unfortunately not, just started five hour coach journey home. Would have liked to stay but the friend I went with has a hospital appointment tomorrow that she can't miss. I seem to jinx everything anyway so if we stayed 'til the end of the week you could guarantee the verdict would come next week, lol!

Every one of them was paying rapt attention throughout, so it seems my worries from yesterday may have thankfully been unfounded! I really don't see how they can go for manslaughter- after such a concise and effective list of instructions and guidance I'll be very surprised if they come back with a not guilty verdict. Fingers crossed!

I'd have no worries about those two who were scribbling and dreaming. I reckon they figured out long ago what he did so they have all the time in the world to scribble!

 

[otto]

Whatever options the defendant has, the prosecution clearly also has the option to draw negative inferences from the failure to disclose.

The right to remain silent, or to choose what information to provide to police as a suspect, should not be used against a suspect.

 

[Nausicaa]

The right to remain silent, or to choose what information to provide to police as a suspect, should not be used against a suspect.

If you are stating your opinion as to what ought to be the case, Otto, that's fine. But someone reading you might inadvertently get the impression that you are stating what the law of England currently is, and that would be wrong. The jury at present most certainly are entitled to draw adverse inferences from the accused's decision to exercise his right to silence. He is even warned of this in the wording of the "caution" when he is arrested.

 

[Curious Alice]

The right to remain silent, or to choose what information to provide to police as a suspect, should not be used against a suspect.

From wiki:
At common law, and particularly following the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where the accused:

fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;