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?

Wouldn't surprise me if he gets off with manslaughter. If a Robert Brown got off manslaughter instead of murder then anyone can. A main who took a mallet, plastic sheeting and a White forensic type suit to his ex wife's house where he bludgeoned her and had pre dug the grave as well.

Wannabe, that's not in my mind really the point.

Without knowing more, it seems that whether or not the intention was to kill her, once she was unconscious NO effort was made to revive her, or call for help, the only thing on his mind was to exonerate himself.

This is why it's so awful. He didn't do anything right. He didn't, it looks like, CARE that he had killed her. And I don't miagine that he cared if he did beforehand, or while he was doing it, or after he had done it.

If this is so he has sociopathic tendencies, the inability really to care about another person...this is what can often lead to such behaviour in the first place. Acting out a fantasy, detached totally from real life.

I don't know if this is the case. I can relate to it though, I've never murdered anyone but for some reason I can relate to the detachment. Maybe I'm a bit odd. As though something else was far more important than the fact she died...

It's like...it's like it wasn't any of it real to him. Her pain didn't matter.
I dunno, sorry...the whole thing looks bloody clear from here. And whether intended or not the fact he did it, cold bloodedly, not in anger, not in passion, not knowing her, makes him liable to do it again and for that reason he is too dangerous to be out.

Ht a lot of speculation has landed on here over the weekend.

In the expectation of more testimony from the trial today, could I repeat a couple of points from the sworn magical evidence which seem to have got a bit lost:

Dr Carey said the medical evidence suggested Miss Yeates suffered a fairly short one-handed neck compression, possibly as short as ten seconds, and cause of death could have been attributable to a sudden stopping of the heart. (comment: this refers to vagal inhibition, a reflex, not the deoxygenation from carotid compression described above as that is a process which much more time and much greater pressure than what was described in evidence).

Dr Carey said many of the injuries found on her body were minor, and there was no evidence of a violent assault to her torso. (comment: absent a full transcript I don't know exactly what injuries there were, but it seems some press reports may have talked up this angle beyond what the actual evidence will bear).

"magical" sorry - "medical"

Carey is testifying for the defense.

Here is the prosecution evidence from the Home Office Pathologist:

An examination of Joanna Yeates?s body revealed the shocking catalogue of injuries from her struggle for survival.
Home Office pathologist Russell Delaney found bruises and grazes on her neck and chin, Bristol Crown Court heard.
His post-mortem examination also uncovered haemorrhages, including under her eyelids, while a blood clot in her nose was likely to have been a result of the compression to her neck.
Marks on her wrists suggested she had been pinned down, while the pathologist also found a small fracture at the base of her nose.
The court heard blood may have dislodged from her nose and dripped on to the stone wall close to where her body was discovered as Vincent Tabak tried in vain to lift her body over the wall.
In addition to the fractured nose, there were 12 injuries to Miss Yeates?s head and neck, three to her torso, 12 to her right arm, 11 to her left arm, one on her right leg and three on her left leg.
A later internal examination found further bruising beneath the skin and possible injury to her voice box.
?The overall pattern of injuries indicate an episode of manual compression of the neck that is known as strangulation,? prosecutor Nigel Lickley QC told the jury.
?Quite apart from the fear an attack might cause, direct compression will be uncomfortable and painful,? Mr Lickley added.
?Miss Yeates would have found it difficult to breathe and you would have expected her to resist and struggle.?

Apologies for the Daily Mail, but they are comprehensive: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047800/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Joanna-Yeates-suffered-43-injuries-slow-painful-death.html#ixzz1bgMwG6aX

Is there a reason why Tabak's defense is being made on this thread?

Wannabe I'd say it was all too easy to find ways to claim that this guy didn't mean it. You see it at all levels when people are confronted against male violence against women. There's a lot of denial.

You don't accidentally strangle someone to death. You just don't.

He deliberately went to her home, and then attacked her. That shows intent. They didn't just come across each other in an unplanned setting, he went to her flat when he knew she'd be there.

That is a press account of how a barrister characterised the injuries.

We are (sorry, were) discussing the sworn evidence with direct quotations from it (not The Mail), not making a case one way or another.

All the weekday posters were doing that during last week. I wasn't about over the weekend, and am disappointed to see the level of press-fuelled speculation which has overtaken discussion of the actual evidence and legal points.

The points about the vocabulary surrounding compression of the neck have already been discussed higher up the thread. I don't see the point in endlessly raking it over; and certainly not in terms beyond those used in the trial.

Nice to see Tabak's defense being quoted here. I'm just imaginging the people trying to make excuses for him I guess.

I believe prosecutions barristers are able and in fact required to report on their expert evidence. If you think he's unqualified Edith I suggest you get in touch with the CPS. I'm sure they'll take you seriously. If you think think the Daily Mail's reporter is inaccurate there's the Press Complaints Commission for that.

This is a fucked up thread QCs are dismissed as unable to deal with evidence, whilst visiting the science museum is regarded as scientific training.

I take it you're reporting directly from the court as you wouldn't trust a newspaper to report what Dr Carey, who was employed by the defense, said accurately.

'He deliberately went to her home, and then attacked her. That shows intent. They didn't just come across each other in an unplanned setting, he went to her flat when he knew she'd be there.'

I thought he was walking past her kitchen window and she waved to him to come in. This fits in with accounts of JY seeking company that evening.

I have to say I have been shocked at the level of detail that's been reported on this case. I cannot imagine how it must be for her poor parents and BF :(

the thing is thunderbolts he is entitled to a defense. We don't have trial by internet forum as yet in this country, and as such discussing the defense evidence is no less wrong than discussing the prosecution evidence.

Just because someone gives evidence for the defense doesn't mean their evidence is any less biased than that of the prosecution. And Nat Carey is one of the top pathologists in the country.

And you are speculating wildly on this thread - "he deliberately went to her flat" no, we don't know that. He may have walked past it and been invited in - there was no forced entry.

Yes. We know that strangling someone can kill them. But that doesn't mean that everyone who strangles someone for a time intends to do so - that doesn't make the action of strangling them any less despicable but the one does not automatically equal the other which is where the defense argument comes in.

It's a bit like the drink drive argument - you know that if you get into a car under the influence of alcohol you might have an accident and kill someone. But that does not automatically mean that when you drink and drive you do so with the intent of killing someone, iyswim.

Jane the detachment is awful. But he's not on trial for that.

Fwiw looking at the defense arguments does not mean I am defending what Tabak did, - I'm not and have said so numerous times.

Also, VT's account of putting one hand over her mouth and one hand to her throat appears to fit in with the clinical evidence.

Just trying to give a balanced perspective with as little speculation as possible.

CS - trials are public. That level of detail is available in any case - anyone can go into a court and sit through a trial if they so choose. The difference these days is that with internet media and social networking it is possible to tweet from a trial for instance and make the level of detail available to the public at large that much more available, iyswim.

I imagine it's only a sign of things to come - in the US, they televise trials, for instance.

I have never said he's unqualified, but neither is Carey lacking qualification. There are points on which they agree - for example that it would take between 20 seconds or less of moderate force to cause death, and that it is not possible to determine with accuracy whether all injuries were incurred around the time of death (some could be older, some could arising from moving the body.

When I was on the thread last week, it was an open discussion of the actual trial evidence, points for and points against, with no pre-judgement of either the outcome of the trial or wild assumptions on the beliefs of posters.

It is a pity that's changed.

trial was meant to get under way at 10:15. as yet no reporting from the journo's tweeting from there - I wonder if there's a problem?

Edith, there's a simple answer - just ignore any trolling.

Thanks Percy - I was on the point of hiding the thread. But perhaps I'll hang on in for a bit, and see what today's actual evidence brings.

wannabe, @skynewsgatherer tweeted at around 1020 that it was going to start at 1115, now just says "delay" with no start time

Trolling? Who on earth is trolling?

Now I'm really confused. Sorry by the way if anything I've said has caused any nuisance...just tell me what not to say and I'll shut up. I'm just writing down my thoughts. perhaps I shouldn't.

I don't think that wild speculation classes as trolling tbh.

But I do think that some of the posts on here now are way beyond what should be acceptable - e.g. comparisons between the accused and a different convicted murderer based on their nationality.

Also some posters do seem to be bringing their feminist agenda here which is uncalled for.

jury stood down until 1230 now

wonder what that's about?

me too

Not you Jane. :)