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

[Luna15]

Not sure if this was mentioned in the tweets we have on here: from the Judges summing up...

He told jurors to "make due allowance" for the stress Tabak was under during the trial and the fact he was not giving evidence in his first language.

really? seemed like perfect double dutch to me!

 

[Trouble007]

im sure this nutjob was already in the flat and hidden in the bedroom, its the only story that makes any sense to me, i reckon he got it wrong and thought they were both going to be away, none of the other scenario's work for me, no freaking way did she let him in, i cant even get a hello out of my neighbour of simalar age to jo after a year of living here! jo did what she had to do when arriving home and after a while walked into the bedroom to put her earings away, and then bam! he was hid in there, the screams start, he panics, tries to stop the screams, takes his hand away shes still screaming as you would expect so in his mind he had no option, which is why it is a mistake in his head and im sure he is actually fusing real events into what actually happened but is leaving out the embarrassing for him bits. im sure at somepoint it will come out he had access to keys or had copies. the case may be over real soon but i can see lots more revelations surfacing after this sorry court case let him get away with that pointless effort in the dock, friends family will want to know, im sure more will come out soon that was dismissed as evidence :banghead:

kudos goes to neurotripsy for going to the public gallery! why didnt i think of that! im only up the road! :rocker:

thanks all for a great place to share our thoughts on this horrendus waste of life, you guys rock!

 

[Clio]

I wonder if the very important item was some CCTV footage of Jo or VT ?

Though it could have been CCTV, I'm assuming that's how they knew VT left no.44 @ 10.13pm

Was it perhaps the CCTV handed in by Sir John Kingman.....

http://www.people.co.uk/news/uk-wor...-being-studied-by-detectives-102039-22852165/

 

[Clio]

He left for Asda at 10.13pm, apparently. So say he IS lying (!), and she WAS dead before 9pm, that's a whole hour to clean up, move her body etc. And why would he put her in a bedroom in his house? Surely just inside the door would do until he got the car into position, if he found her so heavy? It's these details that are so maddening, when he 'can't remember' more important things!

Seems to me the only time he can remember is when he is confronted with irrefutable evidence that he can't deny so he has to weave it into his story somehow.

I suspect that the CPS have DNA evidence or something to show he put her in his spare room otherwise he wouldn't have remembered he did it

From Judge's summary yesterday
Is "a matter for jury to decide" if #Tabak has tailored/invented his account. Must decide if many omissions from statement are significant.

 

[weeeva]

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 premeditated 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.

Welcome Goatmilk.
I can't believe it was a premeditated act. Premeditated in the sense that he sought J out with murder in mind from the start.
How would he know she was going to be alone all night?
For me no scenario makes sense, I think most of us feel the same.
It's the psychology of it and the fact that we have to accept that VT did not know that J was going to be alone all night. The only way he could know this, is if J herself told him. How can a seemingly normal, quiet,intelligent man with a seemingly good life, turn into such a fiend, as soon as he realises that there is an opportunity to make a pass at his pretty young neighbour and she ends up dead when she turned him down.
None of it makes sense unless we find more info on his background after the trial.

 

[Clio]

Does anybody know how long the jury usually takes in cases like this? Will the jury have been sent home overnight, or will they have to stay there until they have made a decision?

I believe the jury in the case of Ian Huntley deliberated for 16 hours over three days but couldn't reach a unanimous verdict. The judge then said he would accept a majority verdict and within an hour they returned an 11-1 verdict of guilty.

 

[FairM]

I think this is going to be Guilty of murder. He will then appeal straight away.

 

[edgedweller]

Time line

8.45pm Jo arrives home she then takes her shoe's and coat off, then walks into kitchen puts oven on to pre-heat before cooking her pizza and then takes a few sips of her cider.

8.47pm Jo hears a knock at her door - Or VT supposedly see's her at the kitchen window, she then goes to open the door something happens and Jo scream's at the front door, VT tries to muffle her screams then pushes her inside the hallway closing the door.

8.50pm - 9pm VT has now supposedly attacked and killed Jo, and then he is left with what to do with the dead body and everything in her flat.

9pm - 9.30pm VT is trying to think of a scenario that makes the investigation look that Jo as been abducted from her flat, he then switches off the TV and Oven and decides to leave her bag with her keys on the table he also takes her pizza and sock.

9-30pm -10pm VT has now supposedly hidden the dead body either in his flat or has struggled lifting the dead body to the car, but astonishingly no one see's him lifting a large object into the boot of his car.

10pm VT drives to Asda's supposedly with Jo in the boot of the car. he his seen walking into Asda and then out side texting TM.

10.30pm VT then drives around to find a secluded area before dumping the dead body.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts too. I think the crucial thing is that she did not have time to take more than a sip of her drink, and she had not eaten. I've said before that I think her top priority on getting home would be eating. The baking would be later, either that night or more likely the next day. She would've been tired from a day at work and then the pub and walking home. She didn't have time to eat so VT must have entered the flat (by whatever means - I'm not sure of that yet) before the pizza was cooked (which I think she put in the oven as soon as her outer clothes were off).

 

[brownbread]

Replying to trouble007's post wondering if VT had access to keys (sorry I can't quote properly am posting from my phone!)

If there was any likelihood that he had a set of keys, would this possibility not have been raised?

And if he had been in the house, why not be honest about it rather than inventing the kiss story? Is it not less of a Mark on his character to say he was in the house (possibly for some plausible reason - eg he heard a noise), then Jo came home, he scared her, then we're back to the existing story about surpressing a scream.

Unless there's some truth in it, why invent the idea that he made a pass at her? It opens the sexual assault can of worms and looks particularly bad in context of making a pass at his neighbour when his girlfriend is away for the evening.

Assuming his story is totally fabricated, and he's had months to come up with something that fits the evidence, why fabricate THAT story? I have to assume there is some truth in it, because it's not the story anyone on their right mind would concoct.

 

[edgedweller]

im sure this nutjob was already in the flat and hidden in the bedroom,

This is definitely a possibility IMO too. Hence the placing of himself in the bedroom at some point in his defence statement. Why would he bother dragging her into the bedroom otherwise? Total waste of energy and time.

kudos goes to neurotripsy for going to the public gallery! why didnt i think of that! im only up the road!

Me too - well, it's my nearest city... seems there are quite a few Bristolians or nearly Bristolians on here! Unfortunately I have pesky kids too, otherwise I'd've been there with bells on.

 

[weeeva]

im sure this nutjob was already in the flat and hidden in the bedroom, its the only story that makes any sense to me, i reckon he got it wrong and thought they were both going to be away, none of the other scenario's work for me, no freaking way did she let him in, i cant even get a hello out of my neighbour of simalar age to jo after a year of living here! jo did what she had to do when arriving home and after a while walked into the bedroom to put her earings away, and then bam! he was hid in there, the screams start, he panics, tries to stop the screams, takes his hand away shes still screaming as you would expect so in his mind he had no option, which is why it is a mistake in his head and im sure he is actually fusing real events into what actually happened but is leaving out the embarrassing for him bits. im sure at somepoint it will come out he had access to keys or had copies. the case may be over real soon but i can see lots more revelations surfacing after this sorry court case let him get away with that pointless effort in the dock, friends family will want to know, im sure more will come out soon that was dismissed as evidence :banghead:

kudos goes to neurotripsy for going to the public gallery! why didnt i think of that! im only up the road! :rocker:

thanks all for a great place to share our thoughts on this horrendus waste of life, you guys rock!

Yes, VT being caught in J's flat would make everything fit into place nicely,BUT
how do you think VT got into J's flat, given that GR has testified that door is always double locked even when there was someone at home? I believe he also said that windows were also locked.

 

[whiterum]

The reason they said she arrived home at 8 40 pm is because that is what the combined CCTV evidence and timing of such a distance on foot suggests.

Why are you saying the murder was 7 to 10 minutes after 8 33 pm? Is that to shore up your claim that Joanna couldn't have opened the cider, turned on her oven etc - although Greg gave evidence of finding the cider open?

If you say it happened at 7 minutes after 8 33 pm which would be 8 40, why are you accusing the prosecution of wrapping it around the screams Mrs Lehman heard, given that Mrs Lehman didn't arrive until 8 45 - 9 00 pm?

What you are saying doesn't fit.

Also you would expect that the professor's 24 hour cctv tape that covered the entrance to canynge road would have caught Jo and the exact time she turned into her own road. Also the silver megane may have been caught on that cctv coming and going that night.

 

[notsure]

Who do you think is more dangerous: somebody who deliberately kills (knows what s/he is doing) or somebody who accidentally kills (being unaware of the consequences of his/her actions)?

I think the latter is possibly even more dangerous than the former. At least a killer who kills with intent could potentially decide not to do it again, but a killer who isn't even aware that s/he is killing somebody could do it again without any inner voice telling them it's wrong.

 

[Clio]

This pretty much sums up my thoughts too. I think the crucial thing is that she did not have time to take more than a sip of her drink, and she had not eaten. I've said before that I think her top priority on getting home would be eating. The baking would be later, either that night or more likely the next day. She would've been tired from a day at work and then the pub and walking home. She didn't have time to eat so VT must have entered the flat (by whatever means - I'm not sure of that yet) before the pizza was cooked (which I think she put in the oven as soon as her outer clothes were off).

I think VT, when presented with facts he cannot deny (CCTV, phone records, DNA etc), explains them by taking elements of the truth and binding them into his story.

So I tend to believe him when he says he turned the oven off. Why even mention it otherwise? I think it's likely that she turrned the oven on in order to cook the pizza but I don't think the pizza got as far as being put in the oven. He took the pizza still in it's box IMHO. Why? Because he had touched the box in someway I guess

It's possible that the oven was on ready for baking but I doubt that was the reason - it was to heat the pizza IMHO. As you say, surely she would want to eat first and bake later or the next day

 

[whiterum]

QUOTE=Clio;7286711]
So I tend to believe him when he says he turned the oven off. Why even mention it otherwise?

Because he'd read someone's scenario on Websleuths LOL

 

[whiterum]

Who do you think is more dangerous: somebody who deliberately kills (knows what s/he is doing) or somebody who accidentally kills (being unaware of the consequences of his/her actions)?

I think the latter is possibly even more dangerous than the former. At least a killer who kills with intent could potentially decide not to do it again, but a killer who isn't even aware that s/he is killing somebody could do it again without any inner voice telling them it's wrong.

To be honest I wouldn't want either of them living next door :doorhide:

 

[aneurin]

Who do you think is more dangerous: somebody who deliberately kills (knows what s/he is doing) or somebody who accidentally kills (being unaware of the consequences of his/her actions)?

I think the latter is possibly even more dangerous than the former. At least a killer who kills with intent could potentially decide not to do it again, but a killer who isn't even aware that s/he is killing somebody could do it again without any inner voice telling them it's wrong.

That's a good point, and one that occured to me last night.

I think it's no secret what verdict I would deliver where it up to me. But it's not. There are twelve other people tasked with delivering the verdict, and they may well come to a different decision. Or not, as the case may be.

However, even after placing the most favourable spin on the defence case, you have in the defendant, a man who, within ten minutes of being invited into a virtual stranger's house, suffers a panic attack and kills them. Such a person represents a clear danger to the public in the way that your bog-standard 'I killed my wife because she slept with the gardener' murderer does not. Determining that the homicide was accidental rather than deliberate makes the perpetrator more of a danger to the public. Who is to know what circumstances might trigger a similar panic attack in the defendant in the future?

Although I expect that Justice Field has his own view on such matters.

 

[edgedweller]

Yes, VT being caught in J's flat would make everything fit into place nicely,BUT
how do you think VT got into J's flat, given that GR has testified that door is always double locked even when there was someone at home? I believe he also said that windows were also locked.

It hasn't been ruled out (well, by us!) that he had a set of keys. Possible.

 

[Clio]

Replying to trouble007's post wondering if VT had access to keys (sorry I can't quote properly am posting from my phone!)

If there was any likelihood that he had a set of keys, would this possibility not have been raised?

I find it really hard to believe he was in the flat before she got home. There were no signs of forced entry and I can't see a credible reason why he would have a set of keys. And if he did have a set of keys, why put the door on the latch whilst taking her body to his flat before going back for the pizza? (If that's really what happened of course)

Unless there's some truth in it, why invent the idea that he made a pass at her? It opens the sexual assault can of worms and looks particularly bad in context of making a pass at his neighbour when his girlfriend is away for the evening.

Assuming his story is totally fabricated, and he's had months to come up with something that fits the evidence, why fabricate THAT story? I have to assume there is some truth in it, because it's not the story anyone on their right mind would concoct.

If he was going to come up with such a story, why on earth say he was chatting for only 10 minutes before trying to kiss her......maybe because 10 minutes was all he could fit into the timeline of his story

I think that his story has evolved as time has gone on. Maybe he admitted early on that she screamed and he was only trying to quieten her down. He is then presented with further evidence. The 9:25pm text to TM, the CCTV footage of him driving away at 10:15pm, the Asda footage at 10:28pm, the further text to TM at 10:30pm etc

It doesn't look good for him if she died within minutes of getting home. So he uses the 9:25pm text to TM to place him in his own flat at that time. He then uses the going to Asda as an excuse to pass her window. If he's caught on CCTV leaving at 10:15pm that gives him ~45 minutes to have a chat, make a pass, try and stop her screaming, move her body, fetch the car, get her in a cylce bag and into the car boot.

10 minutes was the longest he could say he was chatting for IMHO

 

[edgedweller]

It's possible that the oven was on ready for baking but I doubt that was the reason - it was to heat the pizza IMHO. As you say, surely she would want to eat first and bake later or the next day

Yes, going by how I was at 25 (although admittedly I was/am not as sporty as Jo!), there's no way I would've started baking on a Friday night when I was tired from work, had the remnants of a cold and hadn't eaten for nearly 8 hours.