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?

So, Pan, he thought he would be in the sh*t for attempted assault etc, his girlfriend would find out. he'd have a criminal record - so to kill her seemed somehow the only way out? I guess so. I think you're right, it's the reason behind her reaction we need to explore. You don't scream just because someone tries to kiss you. Not usually. Unless there was something in his manner which made him frightening.

Well, yes, Jane. He didn't wake up that morning and think " I think i'll murder that Joanna person today." I speculate he got himself in a sexually aggressive position with her, she screamed, he pannicked and realised he was deeply in the brown stuff and problem-solved it by getting rid of the only witness to it. This 'kiss' malarky is rubbish.imo.

He's lying. He's a proven liar. He even attempted to point the finger at an innocent man.

"does not remember where he was standing when he squeezed Jo's neck"

Could you please not use euphemisms. He didn't squeeze her neck. I can squeeze my own neck right now and it would cause zero harm. On the other strangled her to death. All this trial is about now is him trying to get away with as much as possible.

What sort of scientific training did you do that involves the physics and physiology of strangulation Betelguse? Do you have forensic expertise in this area?

Betelguese

Are you suggesting that this could have all been a result of VT accidently falling onto JY? Presumably that would only have resulted in death if JY had laid still and allowed herself to be strangled rather than move .

I wonder what we'll hear this week. I do find it frightening that he might get away with murder. I think the whole pleading guilty to ms is a tactic to get not guilty to murder. If a jury know that he's already pleaded guiltt to ms they might feel@less inclined to convict for murder as they know he'll go to prison antway

I don't think she is suggesting that it was any sort of accident, purely that it could have taken place on the floor, which would have increased the force he was able to apply and also decreased her potential to move.

Am I right Betel?

or that he could have fallen on top of her by accident, but still would have needed to apply that force deliberately

iyswim

I wonder what we'll hear this week. I do find it frightening that he might get away with murder. I think the whole pleading guilty to ms is a tactic to get not guilty to murder. If a jury know that he's already pleaded guiltt to ms they might feel@less inclined to convict for murder as they know he'll go to prison antway

Going to the science museum isn't scientific training Betelguese.

Pan how do you know he didn't wake up thinking that he would commit murder?

Anyway I'm not sure what the argument is here. She died because he strangled her. Is anybody disputing that?

thunder - I didn't say 'I know' he didn't wake up in that thought. It's just highly unlikely. Evidences from most murders point away from that process. I am speculating only from what has been said and what we know about murders. is all.

We know that a number of murders are premeditated. Even if he hadn't done it that day he might have had in mind taking the opportunity when he could. You can't speculate that far. What we can say is that he deliberately went to her flat, there is no evidence that she invited him in apart from his claims, and then he strangled her to death, hid the body, lied about it and tried to frame an innocent man. There's no reason to take anything he says as something to be believed. He's a proven liar.

Betelguese, you don't need to go to the Science Museum to know that a large man strangling a woman and not stopping whilst she fights for her life, will kill her.

Has anybody seen the case of Joran Van der Sloot who killed Natalee Holloway in Aruba, but got away with it because he disposed of her body, and then went on to kill again in Peru. He's going to be in a Peruvian jail for the next thirty years because this time he got caught.

This is the sort of man that Tabak is.

thunders - that is wild speculation beyond reason.

Sorry what? The people here who have forgotten reason are the ones who are faced with a man who strangled a woman to death and are desperately trying to find reasons why he might not have meant it and refusing to look at the sort of person who behaves in this manner.

He strangled and killed a woman then disposed of her body. Do you think that just happens to any old guy on the street? A wee brainstorm and some "neck compression" and it could be any bloke ending up in that situation? That's an incredible way to view this.

Also I'm not the one who is speculating. I'll repeat:

" we can say is that he deliberately went to her flat, there is no evidence that she invited him in apart from his claims, and then he strangled her to death, hid the body, lied about it and tried to frame an innocent man. There's no reason to take anything he says as something to be believed. He's a proven liar."

Feel free to point out which parts of that are speculation.

"The people here who have forgotten reason are the ones who are faced with a man who strangled a woman to death and are desperately trying to find reasons why he might not have meant it and refusing to look at the sort of person who behaves in this manner."

Who are these people to whom you are referring?