To wonder what possible motive Vincent Tabak had for killing Joanna Yeates.

[captainBeaky]

He apparently didn't know her. Why would he do that? I really can't get my head around it.

It's very odd isn't it.

I'm the same. Keep saying to DH, but what was the motive??? I guess some people just don't need one, but I do feel he must have had one.

I waiting to learn that he had some sort of previous record of odd behaviour towards women - stalking; peeping tom...there'll be something. Yo just don't go from zero to assault and murder of someone you don't know .

Yes, I agree. I drive past the camera crews everyday and just think why?

What's the point of this thread??

Take it to Facebook.

Isnt it usually sex related? He tried it on, she pushed him away him, he turned violent?

Just because he says he did not know her doesn't mean that is so. He is trying for manslaughter rather than murder so i think it is part of his defence.

The point Proud is to try to get my head around human nature, and what could possibly provoke someone to do something so awful. You don't have to read it.

You can't tell people to take a thread to Facebook, and expect them to do as you say,surely?? Do you think anyone will listen??

I think what is particularly chilling about him is that he did, put her in a car boot and went to asda all the while texting his girlfriend, that requires a separation level beyond comprehension to a sane person.

I agree, there will be something in his past.

Maybe he came onto her and she wouldn't co-operate, or laughed, or said no, or looked shocked? There was a huge amount of anger in the attack which makes me think it was (in his mind at least) personal.

There seems to be an assumption here that he is guilty of murder. He may or may not be, and no doubt we all have an opinion on it, nevertheless it is only an opinion and it is up to the jury, not us, to decide.
I'm not keen on trial by media or even by Mumsnetters.

you could say the same about what provokes a person to deliberately hurt a child, or an animal sustained over a period of time. IMO there isnt an answer, they are just pretty evil people.

There seems to be an assumption here that he is guilty of murder.

he admits he killed her

I agree with Finbar.

If and when they can release more details we may find that he has a history of odd behaviour which has worsened over time. He puts me in mind of the man who murdered Sophie Elliott in New Zealand. Whether there were warning signs or not, he may have been building up to this for much longer than they were ever even neighbours for.

We might never find out the answer to your question OP. Even if we do discover he has a history of escalating odd behaviour, we still might never know why he chose her. He hasn't explained much so far and sadly he may never give her family the explanation they are owed.

Agree , suspect there is more history to this case. Police seemed to shift the focus of the enquiry quite suddenly so maybe on a tip off. He's told more than one untruth already so why believe him now that he didn't know her.

happy he admitted manslaughter not murder, ie no intent to kill.

Yeas I agree it is a safe assumption that he killed her as he has admitted to killing her. How exactly does one strangle someone with hands alone by accident? It takes considerable force and the evidence suggested due to all her injuries she put up a massive fight

Is it manslaughter he admitted to?

He's a psychopath

Why does anyone person kill, maim, assault, injure, abuse anyone? There are people in the world with different motives and moral compass to the majority.

I think if you had the answer to that you'd solve most of the world's problems.

We'll probably find out more about him after the trial is over. Look at Peter Tobin, he was only caught after he killed a young polish girl. Turns out he'd murdered 2 more girls but had never been caught. Most people who met Tobin said he was lovely but watch Married to a Murderer his first wife was nearly murdered by him :-(

I must admit I never tend to get drawn into the legal cases on the news but this has me interested. I dont understand how you can admit manslaughter when its someone you dont even know having been strangled in a prolonged way.

My knowledge is poor in the definitions etc but I thought manslaughter was where you kill someone without intent. So how do you inadvertently end up at the flat of a neighbour you dont know then kill them in a struggle?

Surely thats premeditated. What possible reason can a visit to an unknown neighbour turn to manslaughter? And thats before you even touch on his behaviour afterwards.