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?

I don't think that at all. But you don't know "what sort of man" T. is, based on what has been said so far, and quoting from one eg from another continent is frankly absurd.

I have little reason to believe Tabak didn't murder her. He meant to kill her to shut her up. You seem to be arguing for the sake of it, imo.

Actually van der sloot and Tabak are both Dutch. They both disposed of bodies and they both lied as the search for the women they murdered went on.

Pan do you think that the 43 injuries that Vincent Tabak inflicted upon Joanna Yeates were a mistake?

Betelguese, I don't know why you keep going on about information for schoolchildren, it's not scientific training, nor is it relevant to this thread.

'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.'

Yes, Thunderbolts I fail to understand whom you are directing this statement at

No one here is trying to establish that he didn't mean to do it
We're trying (I think?) to figure out HOW he did it, and also perhaps why

where are the people who are trying to exonerate this chap? Who is refusing to look at 'the sort of person' who behaves in this manner?

Are you referring to the witnesses for the defense? (defence...sorry can't remember which way it is spelt)

Why is the nationality at ALL relevant

and where did Pan say anything was a mistake?

thunders - no-one, well me at least, is disagreeing with you. He murdered her. The wild speculation bit is quoting an irrelevant case.

I am just pleased you are not the barrister for the prosecution! You could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Anybody who thinks that Tabak's claims have any credence whatsoever is who that's directed at. If you go through the thread there are a few people who believe it's possible to kill a woman by mistake and that it's reasonable to believe that he might not have known that strangulation causes death. It's a bit like someone being surprised that they use a pen and it makes marks on the paper. It's what it's for.

Also, Pan pronouncing that Tabak didn't wake up with a plan to murder Joanna Yeates, when he knows nothing of the sort. The truth about murderers (and most men who attack women) is that they plan it in some kind of a way.

ok. I give up. thunders, you're right. We are all apologists for a murderer.

oh bollocks thunder. 2/3rds of murders are committed in drink. Most others are commited in a heightened furore over an intimate issue. I know this through my work. They are not 'planned'. ok?

Oh, there were a few people saying it could 'go either way', much earlier in the thread. you're right about that I think, but we weren;t them, well I wasn't anyway, so please, understand that we are agreeing largely with you.

It's not nice talking with someone so combative when you are on the same side essentially

I don't know anything about planning murders...I think I might go to bed and let you get on with it

Night Pan

night.

as I say, I am comforted by you not being the prosecution barrister.

me? ha

you mean thunders don't you

thunder you sound husterical.

You're not dittany per chance are you?

The only things that are certain are that Tabak killed Joanna Yeates and that he hid her body. Anything else is wild speculation beyond reason and would almost certainly lead to a collapse of a trial and a potentially guilty man going free. Because there is absolutely no substance for your claims that he had been planning to murder all along; that he forced his way into the flat (in fact the evidence distinctly suggests that he did not), that he intended to murder Joanna Yeates.

It is in fact entirely possible that he did not intend to kill her until it actually happened. Most murders are not premeditated.

And if Vincent Tabak is found not guilty of murder then all your statements above will be considered libel.

As to your reference to nationalities that is entirely irrelevant.

of course Jane. Sorry for the multiple post one one message.

No prob. Thankyou

in dittany's defence, thunders cannot be her. dittany was genuine and often accurate, and salient.

(I'd be a crap barrister too)

and I miss Ditters

so do I.

and I was one of the posters that said it could go either way and I still think that.

That does not mean that I think Vincent Tabak is misunderstood and deserves sympathy - I don't. He killed an innocent woman. He then hid her body to try and cover up his crime.

But do I think he went to the flat intending to kill her? No I don't. This is a man with no known previous; and yes this is as much relevant as is the strangulation argument - in general, you don't wake up a murderer one day.

On the whole people know that strangling someone could kill them - however not everyone who is strangled ends up dead.

For me it is a fine line between did he mean to asalt her and ended up killing her, in which case actually, no, there was not intent regardless of the outcome, but once it was done he had to deal with the consequences. Or did he intend to kill her. Both outcomes are abhorrent really.

But the truth is that we will never know. A jury cannot be ruled by emotional response - they have to listen to all the evidence and make their decisions based on what they hear.

And in truth what happens is covered in a twenty second period.

whenever I hear about a case like this I hope that I never get summoned to jury service

fortunately Ponders, there aren't that many cases like this. CPS evidence usually is overwhelming one way or another. This one is highlighted by the 'disappearance' of the victim ( hence lack of forensics), and by the media run on one supposed criminal, i.e the landlord.

yes, I'm glad I'm not on the jury.

I think it's all too easy to sit there and say "oh the bastard did x and then y and thus he is a murderer who premeditatedly killed someone. When in fact the evidence doesn't point to that beyond all reasonable doubt. Because while it would seem unlikely that someone would strangle someone else without intending to kill them, on the flip side people do strangle other people without intending to kill them, during domestic violence/sexual asalt/even during so-called sexual fantacy (I don't understand it myself but to each their own) and those people sometimes end up dead.

The acts of violence are no less despicable, and perhaps it should be argued that the violence in itself should mean that it ends up as murder. But legally, it isn't.