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?

Ponders: what you have written about the earrings is internally contradictory - 2 earrings in CCTV. 2 earrings (but only one back) found in bedroom. But earrings on the corpse. I wouldn't put too much weight on press reporting with such obvious flaws.

Was any evidence about earrings presented at the only place that matters - the trial?

Has the Judge's summing up yet occurred?

Summing up tomorrow. There are pictures which show JY had more than one piercing per ear so the stud referred to at post mortem is additional to the teardrop earrings Greg Reardon referred to in his testimony.

Thanks, member!

I hadn't seen an account of that part of his testimony, and always happy to learn more of the actual evidence.

"two earrings found in the bedroom" presented at the trial

teardrop earrings presented at trial and teardrop earrings on CCTV footage

pickled, I thought it sounded as if the defence summing up concentrated on its (very few) strengths much better than the prosecution did.

The earring thing is very peculiar - one in the bed, one under some clothes on the floor, & just one fastener, when she'd only been home a short time & would normally put them together on the bedside table.

I found a timeline earlier today (\link{http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/10/11/jo-yeates-murder-trial-countdown-to-a-tragedy-115875-23480428/\Mirror, 11th Oct}) which, if accurate, seemed to show that VT could have arrived back at the house while Greg's car was still being started by the neighbour (ie he could definitely have known Greg was going away for the weekend)

6.40pm: Tabak arrives at Bristol Temple Meads train station and then cycles home.
6.50pm: A neighbour helps to start Greg?s car and he leaves for Sheffield, arriving at 10.10pm.

(the house is only about 2½ miles from the station, a bike could easily do that in 10 mins)

The timeline also includes some information about how barely they knew each other:

October 25: Joanna Yeates and boyfriend Greg Reardon move into Flat One in Canynge Road.
December 11: After five weeks working in the USA, Vincent Tabak returns to Flat Two, where he lives with girlfriend Tanja Morson.
Friday December 17, 12.50pm: Jo and Greg have lunch together at the Hope and Anchor near their offices.

(They were only there 2 weeks before he went to the US, & he'd only been back a week when he killed her.)

If the defence's account of the timing is correct & she had actually been at home for quite some time before VT was "invited in" around 9.30 (according to him), why hadn't she yet either cooked the pizza or started the baking she was planning to do, even though the oven was on & she was wearing an apron?

How come the descriptions of the screams heard pretty much match VT's account of what happened, even though they were reported before he was even arrested?

Do juries take notes or are they supposed to remember what they hear?

ten minutes would be pushing it to cycle that distance from the station to the flat. If you consider that he would have to retrieve the bike from wherever it was on the station and then exit the station with the bike (Bristol templemeads station is a pretty big place an at rush hour would take a few minutes to get out on to the road before cycling home). You would IMO need to allow at least five minutes to A get off the train B retrieve the bike (including unlocking/putting lock away/putting on helmet) C push bike through station to the exit also allowing for time to exit the barriers on the station.

The thing with the earrings is odd. But if they were so relevan why was more not made of them in terms of a sexual motive?

The defense closing argument was better because IMO the prosecution placed too much emphasis on what happened after/and on speculating on what might of happened, whereas for the defense it's all about whether there was intent.. with no defense of the actions subsequent. And reiterating that the jury must concentrate only what was said in the court and not the press. I wouldn't want to be on the jury in such a high profile case where the conclusion is almost decided by the media before it gets to court and it's unlikely you're going to go in with no prior knowledge.

Yes iirc the jury can take notes but they can also request to see any of the evidence presented during the trial.

I don't see how it matters whether or not she invited him in. That would only matter if she knew he was dangerous or intent on having sexual relations with her.
I don't see a problem with inviting in a neighbour, near to Christmas, someone you have no reason to mistrust.

How on earth can that contribute to his not being guilty in some way? (not that anyone here is saying that, but it's being made such an issue of and I don't think it's relevant - I have many neighbours whom I've been friendly towards and could therefore have killed me, but they haven't)

I am glad however to read on the sky blog that the lack of effort to resuscitate was mentioned in the summing up. This is what kind of swings it for me, that he says he was surprised she lost consciousness, (or suggests so) but once she had, he didn't assume she had fainted, didn't even check as far as we know - he just went, and left her there, and tried to pretend it hadn't been his fault. It's almost like he assumed she was dead without, erm, knowing you could kill someone by doing what he'd done.

He was living in his own little fantasy world from the sound of it, and that to be smacks of intent (could be wrong)

also perhaps she wasn't too happy being on her own, and felt safer to have a chap around, which would explain why she was inviting other male friends to join her. And perhaps she thought having Vincent in the house would make her feel safer.

Speculation isn't going to help at this stage, nor is cheerleading one barrister over another.

The Judge's summing up will contain guidance on the law and the possible verdicts, and what the legal thresholds are to differentiate between those verdicts. Does anyone know how long he is expected to take, and when the Jury might retire?

I don't know.

By the way I realise speculation doesn't help, I'm not really trying to help though. I'm just commenting because it helps me stop thinking about it so much.

Yes, agree about the time to cycle from the station.

You could cycle 2 miles in 10 minutes, but only if you were already on your bike, and not through city traffic.

It's possible he made it home within 10 minutes, but not likely.

Nothing any of us can do will either help or hinder. We're talking about it because we find it interesting. The constant admonishments are getting really old.

the thing is that all the times are approximate, & they're so close together that 2 or 3 minutes either way could make a big difference for some events.

I suppose the CCTV films are the most reliable - assuming they were set with the correct time - which they may well not have been, come to think of it...

If he didn't come into the flat until around 9.30, what was Jo doing after she got home (apart from flinging her earrings around in the bedroom )?

I know the defence said she'd looked up & printed off a recipe - was she on the internet all that time? If so, why wasn't that part of the defence evidence? (They'd have been able to find out easily enough) If not, what was she doing? (& why didn't the prosecution mention computer timings?)

Ponders, just a tiny point that there is no way that Tabak could have done Temple Meads to the house in 10 minutes on a bike. I live in Bristol and there are HUGE hills to go up most of the way.

I would estimate 20 minutes minimum

thanks, MissIng - I looked at pedestrian directions on google maps, hills aren't shown.

no worries Ponders. I wonder how long the jury will take to decide? According to twitter the judge is still summing up. He has said that the jury should consider Tabaks actions before, during AND after her death.

Guys, wasn't there something a long way back about someone having spoken to Vincent, and told him that Jo's partner was going away - or something like that - there was something, I'm sure, that was kind of beyond doubt that he knew she would be alone that night.

I can't remember who it was or what it was now. It was way back in the spring that it was reported.

'Judge now outlining the bruises found on Joanna's body. Prosecution pathologist said they showed grip marks on her wrists, says judge.'

VT must have been holding her wrists with his third hand, then (as he had one on her mouth & one on her throat)

Jane, I'm getting to the point where I can't remember any more where/when I heard things

The judge's summing up is interesting: He appears to say how calculating VT is followed by referring to VT's testimony that the kiss was not sexual in any way, apparently putting these two things at odds with each other (imho of course).

Jane I think VT had spoken to the landlord who had helped Greg start his car earlier, the landlord had mentioned helping him and presumable where he was going.

He says she beckoned him in, can't take that at face value as he is a proven liar and that scenario is totally for his benefit in pleading manslaughter.

Jane Birkin - Tabak & the Landlord Chris Jeffries met that evening & had a conversation. There was supposition that C J may have told Tabak about the trouble starting Greg Reardon's car (from un named neighbours). In court, Tabak can't recollect the conversation fully, but thinks they discussed mildew in the flat. No evidence from Mr Jeffries has been used in the course of the trial, presumably because he's seen as unreliable having allegedly given differing accounts prior to his arrest last year.