Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

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:
pickledsiblings · 23/10/2011 10:55

But Ian Huntley and Fred West both had 'previous'.

JeremyVile · 23/10/2011 10:57

Completely agree with thunderbolts.

I understand this is a discussion and as such different ideas and theories will be talked about but I feel really uncomfortable seeing other people trying to minimise what he's done, or excusing it to an extent.

I mean, why? Where is that line of thinking even coming from? He strangled her, it's really very simple.

thunderboltsandlightning · 23/10/2011 11:00

I don't understand your point. We won't know about this guy's previous convictions if there are any, until after the trial. We don't get told about them because they might influence the outcome.

Also so what? Maybe he's just never been caught before. Maybe he's just been building up to this. He walked into a woman's house and strangled her to death - you don't do that by mistake.

Do you really think that he was unaware that if you strangle someone and keep strangling them, that at some point they will die?

Is anybody unaware of that. Who here doesn't understand that strangulation leads directly to death?

thunderboltsandlightning · 23/10/2011 11:03

I'm also bemused about the people who don't seem to think that it's a big deal that he hid her body and lied about what he did. As if it's perfectly reasonable for a man to say "oops, I strangled a woman to death, and hid the body, but I didn't mean anything by it"

Someone who makes a mistake owns up to it. Guilty people hide the evidence of their crimes. Including dead bodies. He has that in common with Fred West and Ian Huntley too.

wannaBe · 23/10/2011 11:14

thunderbolts the difference occurs though because the cause of death wasn't strangulation - the cause was heart failure. That doesn't excuse the point, but it does turn it into a technicality which needs to be argued.

It's a bit like someone who beats someone up, and that person then has a heart attack and dies. The cause of death is heart failure (and in fact the charge would probably be manslaughter then), but the heart failure was caused by the trauma of being beaten up. But you couldn't make the charge based on one person beating another to death, iyswim.

As for what happened afterwards nobody, not even Tabak's defense lawyer has excused that.

Pan · 23/10/2011 11:18

Is there anyone in the world who believes he didn't 'mean' to kill her? Nothing about his version is authentic. Is it likely that a woman is going to scream out loud because a man leans in to kiss her? Or it is necessary to strangle her to stop her screaming. Leaving the flat at that point would have been an easier way to acheive success in the not-screaming thing.

JeremyVile · 23/10/2011 11:25

VT and his legal team have a valid reason to go for manslaughter, worth a shot isn't it.

I can think of no valid reason for anyone else to give the idea a moments consideration.

PercyFilth · 23/10/2011 11:37

sakura Why do you say that is bullshit? It is a good summary of the definition of manslaughter, it is not arguing for Tabak in any way. Surely it's the reverse because it shows how weak a case he has for manslaughter.

It's all about what needs to be proved and whether the jury can be persuaded to give him any benefit of doubt. I hope not, but you never can tell. Look at the recent case of Robert Brown, who was unbelievably acquitted of murder by a jury, despite the fact that he'd prepared a coffin and dug a grave BEFORE killing his wife. He still got 26 years for her m/s because the judge clearly thought the jury were barking.

wannaBe · 23/10/2011 11:48

"I can think of no valid reason for anyone else to give the idea a moments consideration." Well the jury obviously need to.

And there is stuff on both sides that doesn't add up. He hasn't been found guilty of murder yet, so why can't all eventualities be talked about. Just because one sees things differently to another doesn't make one right and the other not - nothing has as yet been proven.

On the side of the prosecution we know that Tabak put his hand around her neck and that she died. We know that there were additional injuries, although some of those have been explained by the pathologist..

But on the other side we have a man who has no known previous history of violence (and yes, previous history can now be taken into account if it is relevant) who seemingly just decided to go out and murder his next door neighbour one night. That doesn't make sense. He then also admitted to having killed her - why? He'd already disputed the DNA evidence, but other than that there was little to link him to the killing.

Everything else is just speculation. The idea that he forced his way into the flat (there was no forced entry); the idea that he wanted to rape her (no sexual asalt took place); the idea that she wouldn't have screamed just because of a kiss (she may have had previous nasty experience for all we know that made her more anxious when, if he'd leaned in).

That he killed her is not in dispute. But whether he actually intended to? I honestly don't know.

PercyFilth · 23/10/2011 11:48

Re "compression of the neck" being a euphemism. It's not really, because death can result from it in more than one way. I saw it listed elsewhere like this

  1. cardiac arrhythmia leading to cardiac arrest
  2. obstruction of the carotid arteries preventing blood flow to the brain
  3. obstruction of the jugular veins preventing blood flow from the brain,
  4. pressure obstruction of the larynx

I would understand strangulation to mean choking, blocking the airway, but that's just one of the possible results of "compression of the neck".

Pan · 23/10/2011 11:49

sakura is confusing what she would like to believe, with what reality is.

"It seems to me that all this manslaughter/ intent/wilfull intent bullshit is all designed to let men get off murdering women lightly." - seems to me you've spent v. little time thinking this one through.

PosiesOfPoison · 23/10/2011 11:56

Does seem odd though doesn't it Pan? That anyone would even think 20 seconds of strangling someone could be anything other than murder.

Pan · 23/10/2011 11:59

but of course it's all speculation wannaBe. That's what the jury, and we are doing now. Speculating!

My speculation is that he fancied her a bit, or a lot, and engineered a circumstance between them knowing that their respective partners were not around that weekend. Once in the flat he wished some kind of sexual congress and when she rebuffed his overtures things turned physical with him 'forcing' her attentions on her and she screaming for help. He doesn't want to be caught sexually assaulting a woman, and all of the consequence that goes with it, so makes a hurried but clear decison to kill her.

pickledsiblings · 23/10/2011 12:01

...but you can hold your breath for more than 20 seconds with no dire consequences...maybe he held her throat until she stopped making a sound but didn't equate that with meaning that she would die

Pan · 23/10/2011 12:02

yes Posie - so when he is asked "when did you stop strangling her?" and he says, "when she stopped struggling", we may have a bit of respite from this stuff.

pickledsiblings · 23/10/2011 12:04

Pan, there are often no consequences that go with sexual assault.

Pan · 23/10/2011 12:05

he may not have previous for murder, as it were, but I am suspecting he does have previous for sexual/DV assaults. Didn't his now-ex contact the police which pointed the finger at him? Could be wrong.

Pan · 23/10/2011 12:08

pickled - I know that, but that isn't going to be entering his head - he is assaulting her, he knows he is gulity of assault, and fears the possible/likely consequences. ( girlfriend leaving him for one)

wannaBe · 23/10/2011 12:16

see I wouldn't have thought you could kill someone in 20 seconds.

Pan · 23/10/2011 12:18

isn't it just him that is saying 20 seconds? Likely to have been longer?

wannaBe · 23/10/2011 12:18

Pan, but if he is guilty of asalt and could hastily think "wait a minute, the gf will leave, could get in trouble," don't you think those same thoughts would occur on deciding to extend the asalt to murder? Especially given he then confessed to the killing...?

bishboschone · 23/10/2011 12:19

I find this whole thing very scary, he is an educated man living a normal life..why would he kill someone? I can't understand killing another person full stop but somehow it seems crackers that he spent so long studying and working hard to have a decent life just to throw it all away just like that. Do you think he was predisposed to killing or just flipped at that moment. Then he went shopping ..oh my!,,!,!

Pan · 23/10/2011 12:21

I don't know. It's speculation!
I have no idea what particular consequences were runnig through his head. He just knew he had put himself in a bad place, and one way to problem-solve and get himself out of it was to get rid of the only witness.

PercyFilth · 23/10/2011 12:22

Definitely likely to have been longer. He will have certainly knocked a bit off.

wannaBe · 23/10/2011 12:23

no Pan no-one has disputed the twenty seconds.

What happened afterward is just chilling, but, imagine if it wasn't pre-meditated - imagine if it wasn't intentional or even if it was but after the event he realized what he'd done, he could have perhaps gone into shock - and shock can make people do weird things..