Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
Original poster
Ponders · 26/10/2011 11:22

it wasn't the landlord though, it was another neighbour (unless the landlord helped too?)

OP posts:
pickledsiblings · 26/10/2011 11:25

the 'one hand on her mouth and one hand on her throat' is just VT's testimony iirc

It could have been one hand on her mouth followed by one hand on her wrists as she attempted to pull his hand off her mouth followed by hand moved from mouth to throat

member · 26/10/2011 11:25

The landlord directed Greg to Peter Stanley(neighbour) knowing he was mechanically minded & would possibly have jump leads.

Original poster
Ponders · 26/10/2011 11:30

the 'one hand on her mouth and one hand on her throat' is just VT's testimony iirc

that's what I mean about the 3rd hand, pickled - that testimony is all part of his version of events - "there was no struggle & it all happened very quickly"

yes, you're right, member:

'Among the allegations that detectives will be putting to Mr Jefferies is a claim that he would have known that Ms Yeates would have been alone in her flat on the weekend of her disappearance after he helped her boyfriend, Greg Reardon, to start his car on 17 December when it had a flat battery.
Peter Stanley, a neighbour who also helped start the car before Mr Reardon drove off to visit family in Sheffield, said: "I have spoken to the police about what happened and I would rather not say any more at this stage."
Another neighbour, who asked not to be identified, said: "Chris knew that Greg was going to be away for the weekend, because he helped him start his car. On the Friday that Joanne went missing, Greg's car would not start so he asked Chris for some help. He went next door and asked for some jump leads. They managed to get the car started and off he went."'

(from the Indie, 31st Dec)

OP posts:
JaneBirkin · 26/10/2011 11:30

How did he manage to make grip marks on her wrists (both wrists) while holding her neck and mouth,

this would suggest the wrist injuries were not made at the same time, and must have taken place before she was strangled/killed.

So how did they happen and why...Tabak does not mention how they could have happened.

pickledsiblings · 26/10/2011 11:33

The evidence suggests that a struggle was likely and the grip marks happened before death and add credence to this. Is this enough for 'intent' to kill, or does it still fit in with intent to silence JY?

JaneBirkin · 26/10/2011 11:34

Thanks, Member.

JaneBirkin · 26/10/2011 11:37

Pickled, what puzzles me is that VT mentions no struggle, no incident whereby he would need to hold her tightly by the wrists.

Yet there is evidence that this took place before she died. Therefore there must have been physical grappling before he strangled her.

Whether this was in an attempt to rape, another sort of attack or if she did not struggle yet he was able to overpower her and restrain her by her wrists before killing her, is something we don't know, but it seems certain that more happened than he is willing to admit.

Original poster
Ponders · 26/10/2011 11:38

I just found a bit about landlord telling VT Greg was away:

\link{http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349356/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-split-girlfriend.html\DM 22nd Jan}

"Neighbours on Canynge Road yesterday claimed Tabak had returned to his flat on the Friday Miss Yeates disappeared. It is understood he spoke to ex-teacher Chris Jefferies, who had helped her boyfriend Greg Reardon start his car before a trip to Sheffield for the weekend.
A neighbour said: ?When [Vincent] got home on his bike, Chris spoke to him on the drive and told him about what happened with the car.?"

But could be Chinese whispers...

There's a lot of interesting detail in that piece - pity it is the DM, so not as reliable as some sources. eg there is a parking area on the L of the building. Why would VT go out to his car past Jo's flat? (Unless parking area was full & he'd had to park on the street)(or is there also a drive on the R?)

OP posts:
JaneBirkin · 26/10/2011 11:50

Yes I don't understand why on earth he would need to walk round the back of her flat either.

Original poster
Ponders · 26/10/2011 11:57

'Greg found an apron in hall by the surf boards, and one of Joanna's earrings on their bed. A recipe for mince pies downloaded on work PC.' (skynewsgatherer)

does that mean she got the recipe while she was at work? Defence QC said she'd had time to do it at home. Interesting

OP posts:
pickledsiblings · 26/10/2011 12:00

VT says that his car was on the street.

pickledsiblings · 26/10/2011 12:08

blind in kitchen window impossible to shut (Greg's testimony) adds to VT's testimony (imo) as does the position of the apron

Is there any way that VT would have access to this information prior to his own testimony?

Original poster
Ponders · 26/10/2011 12:10

I remember about the blind.

but still think it odd that he would choose to go out that way. blind being broken = light from window shining out = him knowing that Jo was in

(no I don't mind - I've got 3 sets going Grin & I should be doing stuff but can't tear myself away)

OP posts:
pickledsiblings · 26/10/2011 12:20

Ponders, what do you make of the judge saying that it is a legal requirement for both sides to put their cards on the table before trial and the fact that VT's side didn't?

Original poster
Ponders · 26/10/2011 12:24

'"You must not assume because he lied he must be guilty," Judge tells jurors.
His lies might help you assess whether he is a truthful witness, judge explains to jury.
Judge is taking jury through #VincentTabak's defence statement reminding them of certain facts he left out.
Jury is entitled to draw inferences from the omissions, Judge says.'

I think he is suggesting that VT made it up as he went along & that he is a very untruthful witness

OP posts:
MissIngaFewmarbles · 26/10/2011 12:26

Jury is out for deliberation

pickledsiblings · 26/10/2011 12:30

So, the jury have to decide that 'when he strangled Joanna he intended to kill her'. How can you possibly know this? The evidence must be weighed up but do the additional 5 points that weren't on the defence statement get included in that? Even if you take everything that Tabak said to be a lie there doesn't appear to be a lot of evidence of intent. She also had bruises to both sides of her head - is that going to be enough?

pickledsiblings · 26/10/2011 12:35

Are we allowed to say on here what we think the jury might decide or would that be considered inappropriate? And what about possible sentencing, can we say what we think the judge might do?

JaneBirkin · 26/10/2011 12:39

Did she have bruises to her head as well? Sad

I really hope the jury has been presented with a whole lot more than was passed on to us.

Original poster
Ponders · 26/10/2011 12:42

it's only an opinion, pickled, so should be OK.

I couldn't guess....

OP posts:
pickledsiblings · 26/10/2011 12:55

OK then, here goes:

I think the jury may return a verdict of not guilty of murder but that the judge may pass a sentence for manslaughter that is fairly substantial based on VTs actions after Joanna's death.

Thinking of Joanna's loved ones at this time and hope that the outcome is one that they will be 'satisfied' with Sad.

Original poster
Ponders · 26/10/2011 13:07

like with Robert Brown who dug the grave beforehand?

that seems a likely outcome; the prosecution hasn't really proved why he went there & what he intended Sad whatever we all think - but the lying might make them doubt everything he said which is why I wouldn't hazard a guess.

I can imagine he'll get the longest possible sentence either way. There are no mitigating factors at all.

Agree about the family & boyfriend. But at least they aren't left in the confused position of Meredith's.

OP posts:
wannaBe · 26/10/2011 13:57

you have to question how a jury in the case of someone who pre-dug someone's grave before killing them could possibly have reached a not guilty verdict.

I think intent is impossible to prove tbh.

The bit in the dm where the landlord had told vt about the car seems implausible to me. Why would you have a discussion with a neighbour about helping to start someone's car? That just sounds like something out of a murder mystery script.

Equally I don't think the fact the recipe was on the work pc is relevant - presumably if it was a laptop she would have had to switch it on so it couldn't possibly have been downloaded at work iyswim.

Equally the thoughts on the screams heard. The people at the party just thought it was students. In fact there is still no way of knowing for sure that it wasn't. It might not have been, but hearing a scream can't necessarily be given as outright proof that it was someone being murdered, even if someone was being murdered, iyswim.

I've often heard screaming at night - someone's child, someone at a party, just a scream put down to possibly someone in the park messing around. I always wonder but you never know. But if one night I heard a scream and then it turned out someone had been murdered nearby then perhaps I would think about it more... and draw conclusions...

MysteriousHamster · 26/10/2011 14:02

re. Intent I think it's very hard to strangle someone without considering it could lead to death or grave harm, so I actually think it's hard not to think intent was there. Am prob. in a minority though and it's just my opinion.