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?

He knew because he had spoken to the man who helped her boyfriend get his car started for his trip to his brothers.

he did, didn't he, noddy? I remember that too from reports at the time - in fact it was used against the landlord when he was arrested, that he'd helped start the boyfriend's car so he knew he was away.

thing is that the 2 couples hadn't been at all friendly - their only reported contact was when Joanna's cat got into Tabak's flat & T's girlfriend asked J's boyfriend to come & fetch it (is it me or is that weird? why not just put it out herself?)

so it is a bit suspicious that T would suddenly be so friendly when he knew the boyfriend was 100s of miles away

Ponders: that's not weird to me - she didn't want the cat there, but didn't want to risk being responsible for it running off or being run over, especially as the cat was a new arrival and might not know it's way home well or might indeed be a very confused indoor cat.

And he couldn't have known if/when Joanna would be at home that night, or if she'd have family or friends with her. I doubt he could have been planning murder all day, but that does not mean that his intentions did not change and become murderous as the evening unfolded.

but there's one thing missing - he has no form. There's nothing that has cme out of his past about him being a sleezy character/trying it on/a womaniser/overly tactile etc. Nothing.

It's not like Ian Huntley who had previous for sexual asalt for instance even though it was unproven - he had a reputation.

Tabak has nothing.

And while we all want to think that he was the bastard who carefully planned his move and planned to go in that night and do something to Joanna, it doesn't make sense.

You don't wake up one day and go out and murder someone. You just don't.

'Tabak has nothing' might be better worded as 'the press have not reported on Tabak's previous character, nor has it yet featured in evidence'.

He'll be taking the stand tomorrow, and it will be interesting to see how his defence is reported. But it's probably not wise to speculate much beyond the reported evidence.

was Huntley's previous form reported before the trial? I don't think we can know at this stage whether Tabak has form, can we? It has been commented on here recently that at the trial of Robert Black in NI, for the murder of Jennifer Cardy, his previous convictions have been revealed to the jury, which is not normally done in cases like this

If there was something in his character/his past it would have come out in the prosecution.

Most of the prosecution has been based on what happened after Joanna was actually dead.

If there's nasty stuff in his past it's not going to be brought up as part of the defense.

the prosecution aren't allowed to bring up anything to do with the accused prior to the current case, are they?

there are sometimes horrible revelations after a not guilty verdict

Ponders the law was changed after Huntley was convicted to enable past convictions and allegations to be taken into account.

No, Huntley's previous form did not feature in his trial at all, and was only reported on after his conviction.

Why would you grab someone's throat to silence them? Why not just the mouth? Why would you strangle them for 20 seconds or more? That's a very long time.

So even if he didn't necessarily mean to kill her when he first grabbed her throat I don't see how he can explain that 5, or 10, or 15 seconds in he didn't realise his action would kill her.

It's nothing like when you hit someone once in a fight and this one punch turns out to be deadly-there it is plausible that you didn't intend to kill that person.

Here? No way.

wannabe: only in limited circumstances - eg if it is relevant to show there is a highly distinctive pattern of behaviour, or if the defence introduces "good character" then evidence to challenge that can be used. It is for the judge to rule on admissibility in each individual case.

winnybella I don't know.

But tbh I think the defense is clever; if you're talking about needing to find guilty of whether he killed her or not I think that even the actions after the event point to guilt. i.e. fibers in the car/on his clothes etc would point to him having been in contact with Joanna's body.

But the jury don't need to look at that because we know he killed her. So everything after her death is completely irrelevant except to perhaps demonstrate character.

All the jury needs to decide is whether he intended to kill her. It's the intent that is the powerful thing, and tbh I think there is possible doubt of that intent. And it's that doubt element that should determine the verdict.

I do honestly think that it could still go either way.

well that's the question isn't it.

And that's where you come down to motive. Because if he intended to kill her, what was his reason ? Was it because she turned him down? but if that was the case he could have sexually asalted her as well and he didn't.

If it was because she turned him down wouldn't it make sense that he'd made a pass, she'd turned him down, he then raped her or did whatever else he'd wanted to do and then killed her? But there was no sexual asalt which tbh is unusual.

So if his motive wasn't sexual what was it?

It doesn't make sense that he had a reason to kill her.

And without a reason it could be argued that there was no intent and that it happened on the spur of the moment, hence the manslaughter.

Fwiw I don't know what I think. But I can see how there could be reasonable doubt of intent

It's not just doubt, it's reasonable doubt.

The prosecution concentrated on how long it would have taken Joanna Yeates to die, how much force was required, and how much she fought back.

That all makes it pretty hard to believe that he did a little casual strangulation and suddenly realised she was dead.

And ARF at him not having "form" meaning he couldn't have done it.

I mean, WTF? That is stupid and ignorant on so many levels I don't even know where to start with it.

It can still be murder if it happened on the spur of the moment.