Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Joanna Yeates case - why is this happening at all?

739 replies

Ponders · 11/10/2011 17:20

It seems clear that he did kill her, & I don't see how he can claim it was unintentional, so why do her poor parents have to be put through such harrowing evidence?

OP posts:
LoveInAColdClimate · 11/10/2011 17:22

Presumably because our legal system (thankfully) entitles everyone to a fair trial and there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Although TBF I am not au fait with his defence - but presumably he hasn't pleaded guilty?

ceebeegeebies · 11/10/2011 17:22

He has admitted killing her - but the trial needs to go ahead as he is saying it was manslaughter whereas the CPS clearly think it was murder.

The jury will be asked to decide if he did murder her rather than accidentally kill her - the sentences will be vastly different so it is necessary.

fuckityfuckfuckfuck · 11/10/2011 17:23

He's admitted manslaughter I think, the onus is on the prosecution to prove murder as I understand it.

LoveInAColdClimate · 11/10/2011 17:23

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

Ponders · 11/10/2011 17:23

He has pleaded guilty to manslaughter, not to murder.

But from today's evidence there's no way it happened by accident Hmm

OP posts:
catsareevil · 11/10/2011 17:30

Thats for the jury to decide.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 11/10/2011 17:35

Of course! Why bother with trials at all? Fire all the lawyers. Don't bother with witnesses, juries or any of that expensive rubbish. Just send the case notes to Ponders and they will pass sentence. Save everyone a few quid. Hmm

Ponders · 11/10/2011 17:36

I know that's the principle of the thing.

But he admits killing her.
He killed her with his bare hands.
He looked up "murder" & "manslaughter" on the internet before he was arrested to find out what the sentences were likely to be. (also "extradition")
The case will be costing a fortune.
Her parents & the jury will have to sit through accounts of what happened in minutest detail.

'The court heard that Tabak first confessed to killing her during a conversation with a Salvation Army chaplain while he was in custody. He had previously disputed police evidence on a string of occasions after his arrest in January. But while in prison, he was said to have told the chaplain he was sorry.
Lickley said: "Vincent Tabak went on to say that he was going to plead guilty."'

It doesn't seem right that he can dictate the course of events like this

OP posts:
catsareevil · 11/10/2011 17:38

Do you think that he should have to plead guilty to murder then?

catsareevil · 11/10/2011 17:41

A guilty plea often results in a lower sentence than if found guilty at trial, as an allowance is made for the person having removed the need for a contested trial. But the accused is entitled to plead not guilty if they wish.

Ponders · 11/10/2011 17:44

I suppose I do...I know he couldn't be made to plead guilty though Confused

& presumably making her parents listen to what he did doesn't bother him or he wouldn't have done it in the first place

OP posts:
CogitoErgoSometimes · 11/10/2011 17:47

Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?

captainBeaky · 11/10/2011 17:55

I think it is all gross, I live locally and followed it carefully, as many Bristolians did. Her poor parents, the media speculation, the 'clearly guilty professor) etc. I can't imagine WHY he killed her and that does bother me.

Feenie · 11/10/2011 18:03

Very similar to Ian Huntley - he claimed it was all an accident too. Hmm

FannibalLecter · 11/10/2011 18:22

It's about the mental element isn't it. He has to have had the necessary intent to be guilty of murder (which it definitely seems he did have - did he mean to kill her? YES!), but even if there's any chance he can prove he didn't, there has to be a trial. I agree though, he is a horrible evil man, he should have pled guilty and not have put Jo's family through this circus.

Northernlurker · 11/10/2011 18:25

He can claim whatever he chooses. The purpose of the justice system is NOT to provide comfort to her poor parents. The purpose is to determine guilt and innocence. He is entitled to claim he didn't intend to kill her. When he inflicted 43 injuries on a woman a foot smaller than him, he wasn't trying to murder her. However the Jury is also entitled to come to their own conclusions.

givemushypeasachance · 11/10/2011 18:31

There are several different types of manslaughter. There's a lot on the interweb about it if you want to get into details, but as a basic there is:

Manslaughter - diminished responsibility - basically your mental state (due to an "abnormality of the mind") meant that you were not full responsible for what you did, although you don't reach the threshold of full-on "legal insanity". You probably don't want to try for legal insanity as an excuse for murder because if the judge agrees and thinks you are insane then you can be locked up indefinitely which is more than you would usually get as a sentence for just straight murder, so this is the more common option if there is any suggestion of something not being right with a defendant's mental state.

Manslaughter - provocation - this isn't "he was trying to stab me so I stabbed him" as that would be self defence; this is the actions or words of the person pushed you to the point that you had a sudden and temporary loss of control. The jury have to consider that a reasonable person would have also been provoked. Examples used to be things like the other person confessing adultery to you, but more usually it would be something like domestic violence pushing someone to the edge.

Manslaughter - suicide pact - not relevant.

Involuntary manslaugther - due to "gross negligence" (normally something like corporate manslaughter such as a train crash, an accident at work) or an "unlawful act" where you intended to commit an unlawful act but death could not have reasonably been forseen - such as if you burgle the house of a frail OAP and they are shocked into a heart attack then that would be a forseeable event, but if you shock a healthy young adult it might not be.

Until the prosecution finish and the defence start we won't get "his side of the story", but I would expect diminished responsibility might be quite likely - although he might claim he only intended to break into her flat and panicked when he found her there or something weird like that, but it doesn't sound too likely at present based on the description of the injuries she suffered.

I observed a murder trial in Cardiff years ago where the defendant was a teenage girl who had killed her boyfriend after he slept with a mutual friend - he told her what he'd done and she grabbed a knife from the kitchen side and stabbed him. She had suffered depression and had clearly had a pretty messed up life before this, and the jury found her not guilty of murder but guilty of DR manslaughter. I thought at the time it might have been the jury just deciding to show her some sympathy by picking the verdict that would have a significantly shorter sentence, since murder is automatic life (thought rarely more than 10 or so years) and manslaughter is discretionary - I think she was given a sentence of about six years so she would be out by now.

Andrewofgg · 11/10/2011 21:46

You get a discount for an early guilty plea but not for murder where the sentence is life and the judge has to decide how long before you can even apply for parole - in a few cases that is never - by reference to factors in which the early guilty plea is of little or no relevance.

But in any event Ponders and Fannibal he has the right to plead NG and make his defence. That the media make a circus of it is not his fault, whatever else might be.

begonyabampot · 11/10/2011 21:48

I know he is entitled to plead not guilty or manslaughter but I can't help feeling in this case if he was truly sorry and was horrified at his actions and out of sympathy to her parents then he should just plead guilty to murder to avoid any drawn out trial and to receive a proper punishment (of sorts) - but I'm a bit naive that way. Obviously some cases that result in someones death aren't always clear cut and deserve the murder charge.

Greythorne · 11/10/2011 21:51

Those treating Ponders as if she doesn't understand the basics (looking at you, Cogito) have missed the point of the OP. Of course everyone is entitled to a fair trial, it just seems very, very peculiar to admit manslaughter of a total stranger by strangling. How can that possibly be accidental?

givemushypeasachance · 11/10/2011 22:06

Greythorne - if he was pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter due to diminished responsibility or provocation then he wouldn't be saying that the killing was accidental, he would just be arguing that he wasn't fully responsible for his actions due to either mental abnormality that affected his judgement or provocation that pushed him to lose his self control. So his defence would argue that because of the mental ishoo or provocation he shouldn't get the full "murderer" whack of a life sentence given to him automatically, the judge should look at the facts and then give him anything from slap on the wrist on up as permitted under the discretionary sentencing available for that crime.

Ponders · 11/10/2011 22:08

Thanks, Greythorne Smile

mushypeas, if the manslaughter plea was under one of those conditions you listed, wouldn't it be reported as such?

OP posts:
givemushypeasachance · 11/10/2011 22:22

Ponders - I'm not 100% sure (my law-ish knowledge comes from the academic side and some work experience quite a while back now, I never qualified or practiced). I'm Bristolian as well and have followed the story; I had been looking in the media coverage to see whether it was mentioned and never spotted anything.

I think the plea and directions hearings and essentially the negotiation beforehand came up with the defence offering a plea of guilty to manslaughter and the prosecution saying no dice, we want to go for the full murder option and won't take any less (because they're evidently confident they can get guilty on that). I'm not certain whether the jury will have been formally told in court that he's already offered a guilty plea to manslaughter and the grounds for that - it's not something I remember from my criminal law studying days but I would presume that it is still there as a "back up" - so if the prosecution don't get a guilty for murder then the judge would still sentence him for manslaughter. It'll have to all come out in the defence because he must have admitted certain facts and be disputing others, and which he is disputing should indicate whether it's a diminished repsonsibility issue or not.

Ponders · 11/10/2011 22:29

If the jury hadn't been told about the manslaughter guilty plea it'd be pretty hard to keep it from them, these days, wouldn't it?

I know they're always instructed not to discuss the case or look at any media reports (???) but unless they're blindfolded outside court & locked away from all radio, TV & internet sources they must be aware...

The first 2 days of evidence have been painful enough. Can't imagine what else is coming Sad

OP posts:
Ponders · 11/10/2011 22:31

(I suppose his reported behaviour immediately after the event sounds odd enough to be considered as diminished responsibility)

OP posts: