Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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 · 28/10/2011 10:43

jury called back into court after sending note to judge...

OP posts:
Original poster
Ponders · 28/10/2011 10:47

oh - just clarifying the "intent" issue

'Judge reiterating that the issue is whether Tabak intended to kill Joanna or cause her really serious harm
After looking at evidence. If jury are sure there was intent they should convict. If not they should find Tabak not guilty, says judge'

OP posts:
MissIngaFewmarbles · 28/10/2011 10:48

LLooks like they are struggling with what intent actually means eg just harm or kill. Think it wont be long now

MissIngaFewmarbles · 28/10/2011 10:49

x posts Ponders

MissIngaFewmarbles · 28/10/2011 10:49

x posts Ponders

JaneBirkin · 28/10/2011 10:54

What is the difference in terms of sentencing? Between MS and murder I mean.

Also can he appeal if they decide it was murder? I guess if it's MS he can't as he's admitted that.

JaneBirkin · 28/10/2011 10:58

It seems a bit biased to tell them that if they're not sure, they should go for 'not guilty'.

But maybe that's just the way the system works.?

Are they allowed to say what they think despite there being no concrete evidence of intent, or do they have to stick to facts, literally?

If it were me, my feeling is very strongly that he was waiting for her to get home to carry out something shocking for his own purposes. I could be wrong, it's just a feeling...but would I be wrong in that case to call murder, or are you allowed your individual viewpoint even if you can't prove it's right?

Original poster
Ponders · 28/10/2011 10:59

Legally, if not sure it's not been proved.

But the maximum penalty for manslaughter is life...

OP posts:
Original poster
Ponders · 28/10/2011 11:02

You could argue that the only reason it couldn't be proved was that he refused to provide ("forgot") a lot of information & find him guilty on that basis

but that's not how it works. innocent until proved guilty

I hope he gets life anyway. bastard.

OP posts:
Pan · 28/10/2011 11:02

for manslaughter, sentencing is the choice of the judge. For murder, it's a 'common law' offence and sentencing must be a life sentence. What that means in practice for time spent in priosn can be variable.

The jury have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal courts you have to be sure before you convict. IN civil courts it's on a sort of 'balance of probabilities'.

JaneBirkin · 28/10/2011 11:02

Oh that's reassuring. Though could he get out sooner if they say MS rather than murder...it's a minefield.

If no intent, where on earth do the wrist injuries come into it.

It's a no brainer really apart from the technicalities it's been festooned with which are a bit difficult for anyone to grasp imo

JaneBirkin · 28/10/2011 11:03

Thanks Ponders, and Pan.

I would think proof is in the wrists, wouldn't you? Something happened to them Sad

Pan · 28/10/2011 11:07

How long he spends in prison will depend on him. IF he is able to show evidence of a reduced risk then it will be a shorter time. If he continues to deny an intent after a murder conviction, then that amongst other things will mean longer in prison. Attitude of the priosner is v. important re risk, obv.

MissIngaFewmarbles · 28/10/2011 11:08

the jurors can make any decision on any basis they like Jane.

member · 28/10/2011 11:08

Oh dear, 9.5 hours deliberating & they have to ask "what was the question again?"

pickledsiblings · 28/10/2011 11:12

but she could have been trying to remove his hand from her mouth which he would not want her to do because he was 'intent' on stopping her from screaming - I'm not sure the wrist injuries can indicate intent to kill tbh

JaneBirkin · 28/10/2011 11:32

No, that would indicate a struggle, which he has denied.

JaneBirkin · 28/10/2011 11:35

I don't think it's possible to cause gripping injuries on both wrists at the same time as holding one hand over the mouth and one behind the neck, therefore these injuries indicate a struggle prior to him killing her (couldn't have taken place after).

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. He's making it up as he goes along.

JaneBirkin · 28/10/2011 11:36

Member - quite.

meditrina · 28/10/2011 12:13

The judge has now directed that he will now accept a majority verdict.

MysteriousHamster · 28/10/2011 12:13

If intent to 'cause really serious harm' counts as murder (is that what he's saying??), than that should make it easier for some people to feel he is guilty, I think.

meditrina · 28/10/2011 12:32

He did give go over the legal points about intent, but we've known all along that that is what the case will hinge on.

It remains up to the Jury - who are the one's who heard all the evidence, not just the bits which have been reported - to be the one's who decide, and they have to do so in accordance with the law not (as the judge has already said) by emotion.

He's guilty - he's admitted killing her. This is a question of what legal definition that killing fits. Either way, he's going down for a long, long time.

I wonder if there will be a verdict before the weekend?

TheBrideofFrankenstein · 28/10/2011 12:40

Also can he appeal if they decide it was murder? I guess if it's MS he can't as he's admitted that.

He can appeal the sentence for MS but not the conviction.

ie if hes found guilty of MS then he shd theoretically get credit for pleading guilty, so if he got life, he could appeal on the fact that the sentence was too harsh

Lua · 28/10/2011 12:46

you know what i don't get. His explanation awlays suggest that he was just trying to quiet her down. That he put his hand on her mouth and on her neck. You don't strangle someone to death by putting a hand over someone neck do you? How can you strangle someone without meaning to harm?

member · 28/10/2011 14:20

Much as I said earlier in the thread that I don't see putting your hands around someone's neck as a reflex action, if you'd removed your hand from over someone's mouth & they screamed, you might choose to up-the-ante by involving the neck for the purpose of cutting off sound. In a stressed/panic/rage scenario, I'm not sure that you would neccessarily register the full, possible consequences.