Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
MysteriousHamster · 26/10/2011 14:08

Of course I realise that's a massive over-simplification of the case, but there you go, that's what I think. The injuries Tabak didn't even try to explain lead me to believe she would've struggled while it was happening and that Tabak must've noticed it.

lborolass · 26/10/2011 14:14

First post on this thread but I have been following the case when time has allowed. Apologies if I've missed something crucial but I'm not expecting a guilty verdict as I don't think the prosecution have put forward a strong enough case for the jury to be sure that they can decide on murder.

As long as VT is given a substantial sentence I wonder if Joanna's family and friends will be too concerned with which charge he's guily of.

wannaBe · 26/10/2011 14:19

mh I think that's where the intent to cause serious harm comes in.

Because although you know that strangling someone can cause death, equally you may not intend for that to happen - as the judge pointed out in his summing up, people have been strangled for longer and not died so it is not an exact science.

As none of the injuries have been able to be pinned to a time it is very difficult to prove any kind of intent there. It could perhaps even have been possible that vt lifted JY by her arms to move her after she had died and wrist injuries could have been caused that way? The pathologist did point out that many of the injuries could have been caused by the moving of the body..

Original poster
Ponders · 26/10/2011 14:27

'When considering Joanna's injuries the jury should concentrate on bruises, rather than abrasions, as these happened during life, says judge.
Judge now outlining the bruises found on Joanna's body. Prosecution pathologist said they showed grip marks on her wrists, says judge.'

(skynewsgatherer)

she was still alive when he was gripping her wrists

it makes his description of what happened even less reliable. how could he "forget" he did that?

OP posts:
PosiesOfPoison · 26/10/2011 14:28

I really hope Joanne's family see this man found guilty.

member · 26/10/2011 14:46

Because although you know that strangling someone can cause death, equally you may not intend for that to happen

Intent in murder cases applies not just to death as an outcome, but as serious harm/GBH. I don't think that you can argue that putting your hands around someone's neck & applying pressure is an involuntary reflex action like putting your hands out to save your face when falling.

wannaBe · 26/10/2011 14:58

no exactly, and the judge has included the "intent to serious harm" in his summing up - perhaps in order to make it clearer that there surely can't be any doubt that you at the very least know that strangling someone for a period of time will be harmful to them if not kill them.

So the implication seems to be that while it might be possible to reach a no intent verdict on murder, it would seem impossible to do so wrt serious harm as the minimum outcome of strangling would surely be obvious..

pickledsiblings · 26/10/2011 15:02

i think there is a grey area around strangulation due to its use its use autoerotically

meditrina · 26/10/2011 15:13

Erotic strangling is associated with reduced oxygen supply, isn't it? She wasn't suffocated, and there is no evidence of any sexual assault (though plenty of prosecution assertion on this but I don't see what they're basing this on).

Jury has been told there is no rush, and to put aside emotion in reaching their verdict. I wonder how long they will be out for.

member · 26/10/2011 15:13

i think there is a grey area around strangulation due to its use its use autoerotically

Yes, but VT claims there was no sexual element & that he put his hand round her neck merely to stop her screaming so I don't think that's valid in this case.

pickledsiblings · 26/10/2011 15:34

I'm not suggesting it was used as such in this case but just in terms of knowing that people do it vs knowing for sure that someone will die/be seriously harmed if you squeeze their neck for 20 seconds.

member · 26/10/2011 15:56

Ah, I get you now pickledsiblings, although you could argue that the majority of people only know about the existence of auto erotic asphyxiation due to them ending in death Wink

Meditrina, strangling can be associated with reduced oxygen supply because of the squashing of the carotid arteries carrying oxygen to the brain i.e it isn't just about blocking breathing/suffocating.

I'm going to get told off by EdithWeston aren't I?

JaneBirkin · 26/10/2011 16:02

It's missing out so much though. There's masses of stuff unaccounted for, unexplained.

He says she was screaming because he tried to kiss her. But that's clearly bollocks because if he killed her at that point, she had already sustained injuries to her wrists, and that's not something you do to someone while you're trying to kiss them.

It's obviously bollocks. Sorry, I'm getting cross about it now.

pickledsiblings · 26/10/2011 16:11

The trying to kiss her and the flirting are additional testimony that shouldn't have been mentioned so will most likely be irrelevant anyway (as far as I understand) so there's no need to get too cross about it Jane.

Original poster
Ponders · 26/10/2011 16:13

All parties in the #Tabak Trial called back to court 1. It is likely that they will be sent home for the evening.

(skynewsgatherer)

OP posts:
JaneBirkin · 26/10/2011 16:14

Thankyou,

yes, I suppose you're right. I just think it shows how little regard there is for the truth with this man's account of what happened.

I mean it goes directly against the evidence. He 'can't remember' how the multiple injuries were caused? Really??

meditrina · 26/10/2011 16:16

Here's a huge amount missing because the accused has refused to answer questions or testify about it. No amount of speculation is going to fill those gaps.

I don't think anyone who's adding evidence based information or who is clarifying medical info is getting adverse comment. Has she left the thread?

JaneBirkin · 26/10/2011 16:27

I know, Meditrina. We can't know, I guess we are trying to make some kind of sense of what is there

and it's not working very well, there's not enough to go on and we will never know what happened.

That in itself makes me hate the b*stard.

member · 26/10/2011 16:29

Jury sent home, back in court tomorrow at 10.30am.

No idea if she's left the thread Meditrina or if she'll come back & scold us for adding to the thread without a responsible babysitter present Grin

MissIngaFewmarbles · 27/10/2011 14:42

Wow I'm surprised the kury is still out. Thought it would be a much faster decision.

Original poster
Ponders · 27/10/2011 14:45

I'm not at all surprised, MissIng - it's a tough one to call. Also the jury is 6 women, 6 men - I wonder if they've split down the middle Hmm

I think that after a certain length of time they will be told they can go for a majority verdict

OP posts:
MissIngaFewmarbles · 27/10/2011 16:13

DH and I thought that Ponders, maybe by the end of tomorrow if no unanimous decision?

MissIngaFewmarbles · 27/10/2011 16:13

I think it's maybe one or two rather than even split

Original poster
Ponders · 27/10/2011 20:54

I suspect it may start out as a roughly even split & then as they discuss it people change sides. Would love to be a fly on the wall

OP posts:
wannaBe · 27/10/2011 21:26

The real fear is that individuals may not actually be able to reach a verdict i.e. that they can see both sides of the argument and therefore cannot reach a conclusion since it's so emotive i.e. we know he killed her and know he disposed of the body, and actually the matter of intent is quite small compared to the bigger things we already know to be the case, iyswim.

If the jury is hung and no verdict can be reached then presumably that also means no sentence can be handed down for the manslaughter and another trial will need to be arranged... etc etc.

And every time that happens it must make it harder because now the evidence is out there there's nothing for a new jury to consider, iyswim.