Joanna Yeates case - why is this happening at all?

[Ponders]

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?

He strangled her because he wanted to kill her not because he wanted to shut her up. There is no reason to believe his lies. He's claiming it was a mistake so he can get away with manslaughter.

Yes, thank you, Percy, Dr Carey, although as I had written his name correctly 5 times in the post immediately above that one...nevermind.

Point is that even defense's pathologist admits that death took some time (ie not that he compressed her neck for 1 second and that was it) and that there was a struggle-marks on her arms etc.

I think that I have a problem with the mens rea thing. Can a legal bod give me some guidance on this, please? I am scratching an itch but the thought isn't coming out.

I know it means "guilty mind". I know it means intent. But what about the scenarios I laid out above, Unless the accused admits it, the jury can only make their decision on what is beyond reasonable doubt, is that right?. So, if Tabak is found not guilty of murder it would be because the mens rea hasn't been established. So the jury would think that it is not beyond reasonable doubt that he did intend only to stop her screaming, for example. Have I got that right?

winnybella Yes, just thought it was best to clarify in case anyone thought it was two different people.

Okay, I keep coming back to this and reading so I'll just say this, as it's on my mind and keeps bugging me and no one else has said it (I think)

You know in the cross examination, he said he went out, well he was bored and went out at least once before he finally ended up in her flat.

I'm just thinking, he knew her boyfriend was going to be away, maybe he didn't know what time she would be getting home from work, but the way he describes his actions after he got bak from work, well it almost sounds like he was anxious, unsettled, kept going out short distances for no reason (to take pics of the snow - yes well, and he hasn't any because it was 'dirty') so I think from this that he was waiting for her to get back. He kept going past her window, she wasn't back yet, he went indoors again.

WHY keep going out like that. I think he intended to catch her attention and go round if he possibly could.

I don't know why he might have wanted to, but either he wanted to spend time in her flat with her or he had other ideas already.

I think that he might have been fantasising about something like this for quite a while...have they looked at his computer history from BEFORE he killed her? I imagine that's all been deleted.

Sorry, this is pure supposition and might be way off. It's just, when I was young, I fancied one of the boys who lived round the corner and the number of times I went out for 'no reason' was outrageous...I am finding myself identifying with this behaviour, a lot of the things he says resonate with that sort of stalking mentality which I myself was kind of on the edges of as a teenager. (embarrassingly)

I think he was very excited about Joanna coming home on her own.

The time taken in a struggle hasn't been estimated. The actual killing compression seems to have been very brief. Which injuries were caused in the struggle, and which post mortem?

The trial resumes on Monday. Speculation on his character or his actions beyond what has been said/challenged in evidence, or any other pet theory, is utterly irrelevant. This thread has stayed pretty much close to the evidence (unlike one's at the time of her death). I hope that isn't about to change.

Ok. No, I don't want to deviate from the evidence. But it just seems so clear to me from what was said. Here is a transcript:

'On the night of 17th December Tabak's girlfriend went to a work Xmas party. She worked at Dyson.
By the time Tabak got home his girlfriend had already left for the party.
After a couple of minutes of getting home from work Tabak went out again. Just after 7.15pm.
Tabak went to take some photos of Bristol in the snow. He returned without taking any pictures. He said the snow was dirty. When he got back he then starting looking at the Internet until 7.37pm.
He then started to watch TV and made some dinner and had a beer. Tabak then went out again. He felt lonely and it was boring without his girlfriend. He decided to go to the big Asda in Bedminster to buy himself some small treats.
He had to use his car - which was parked on the street outside. Tabak unable to say exactly what time he left his flat.
Tabak's lawyer tells him that Joanna did not get back to her flat until about twenty to nine. And that Tabak drove away at 10.13pm.
At 9.25 he texted Tanja saying he missed her loads and that it was boring without her. Tabak says this was before he went to Asda. "How soon after sending that message did you leave your flat?" Tabak:"I think within minutes."

[I think this is possibly the bit he has changed, to make it look like there wasn't enough time to have struggled with Joanna. I think the text was sent after she was killed and that would match up with the screams that were heard around 9pm.]

He left past flat 1, setting off the security light. The light inside Joanna's kitchen was on. Tabak looked into the kitchen and saw Joanna. Tabak: "I waved to her and she waved back." " She was friendly... she was going to open the front door." Tabak:"She invited me in.. I took it (coat) of and hung it on the coat rack,"

I'll leave it at that.

Have been browsing around and have seen this posted on another site, which seems to sum up the issue pretty well:

"It would only be manslaughter if it was accepted that a reasonable man would have not realised that compression of the neck would result in death or serious injury; the fact that VT himself might personally have been acting under some misapprehension of the consequences of his actions is irrelevant.

The other key point here is to understand the crucial importance of the 'no struggle' theory advanced by VT. Since, had JY struggled whilst VT was strangling her, then it would have been blindingly obvious, even to the dimmest of the dim, let alone someone in possession of a PhD, that she was in distress, and that he was physically harming her, and that he should desist immediately.

So, in order to believe that it was manslaughter, you not only have to accept that the 'average joe' doesn't realise that strangling someone is an act highly likely to kill them, but you also have to accept that at no point during the proceedings did JY exhibit any signs of concern at this unfortunate turn of events."

That's really good Percy. It makes sense.

No idea how they think they might get away with manslaughter on this. Perhaps they have something else up their sleeve but honestly it seems very doubtful doesn't it. Maybe it was just 'worth a try' or something...poor family.

this is why the marks on both of their arms become relevant as they may suggest 'evidence' of a struggle

often, when a man has attacked a girl, the girl is able to get a few scratches in, & then there is DNA under her fingernails; as it hasn't been mentioned I'm assuming there wasn't any under Jo's, which makes it harder to prove a struggle.

The pathologist said she had very short fingernails. I think that was when they were talking about the possibility of her clawing at her own neck to try and loosen his grip.

Jane - any computer history could have been deleted but it is never actually deleted - a phorensic IT specialist would be able to retrieve it. As there is no mention of anything of the nature of stuff researched prior to Joanna's death I think we have to assume that there was nothing untoward on the computer.

Again if the prosecution wanted to prove his character in terms of pre-meditation any computer evidence prior to the killing would have been brought up e.g. s&m he was interested or weird sexual fantasies or some such. iyswim.

It seems to me that all this manslaughter/ intent/wilfull intent bullshit is all designed to let men get off murdering women lightly.

Men murder women all the time (Two women a week are murdered by their spouse in the UK alone) then they've devised this system that pretends to be SHOCKED that a woman should die if a man beats her or strangles her.

They act SHOCKED.

And pretend they didn'T mean it.

BUt on the rare occasion a woman kills a man the court wipes the floor with her, every time.

I mean look at this bullshit for a start:

"It would only be manslaughter if it was accepted that a reasonable man would have not realised that compression of the neck would result in death or serious injury; "

I think your average woman knows that Compression of the neck On a Person Weaker than Us i.e Strangulation MIGHT kill someone, THEREFORE it is something we should never ever do.

Men, though. They'Re allowed to Act Thick.

So you think that he meant to kill her and thought he'd get away with it Sakura? That's a huge risk to take, don't you think?

When was strangulation intended for anything other than killing someone? Like I said it's like claiming that you had no idea you'd kill someone if you shot them. Totally unbelievable.

This "who me?" crap coming from someone who strangled a woman to death whilst she desperately fought for her life is disgusting. It's also disgusting that people are giving credence to his claims, and discussing them as if they might be true.

Also "compression on the neck" - a complete euphemism, and it's appalling that anybody is using it, especially the court. The word is strangulation.

It is the huge risk, but for a woman-killer the killing a woman would be worth it. It's a bit like arguing that Ian Huntley can't have meant it because it would have been a huge risk, or Fred West. He nearly did get away with it - the landlord was in the frame for ages.

He hid her body too, so he clearly planned on getting away with his crime.