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?

IIRC, murder has to be intentional, the murderer has to intend on causing someone's death. They don't have to necessarily go to their house, get a gun, fill it with bullets, drive to the victims house and shoot. It sounds like she spurned his advances, he lost his temper and he murdered her. He said that had his hands around her neck for 20 seconds. I can hold my breath for 20 seconds, it's not going to kill me. A patient can be sucessfully resuscitated if they have stopped breathing for 3 minutes.

If he said it was 20 seconds, the truth is that it was probably longer.

It's like when the doctor asks someone how much they drink or how many fags they smoke - people always knock a bit off.

We will never know how he entered the flat & what happened after he went in, the version of events of what happened can sadly only come from Tabak who by pleading guilty to manslaughter is fighting for the least possible sentence.
Its hard to imagine someone inviting in a neighbour they barely knew for a drink. It's hard to imagine screaming loudly because someone kissed you or made a pass at you. It's just not a very plausible 'story'.
With regard to the 'texting many men' comment, I have a lot of male friends who
I would text to see if they fancied a drink in my previous pre motherhood life if DH was away, doesn't mean I'd be lonely & seeking only random male company, means maybe I'd like to catch up with friends before Xmas, certainly does not mean I'd invite in a male neighbour I barely knew for a drink. I would however open the door to a neighbour I barely knew to see what they wanted.

One would imagine 20 seconds is a long time to have 'what am I doing?' thoughts...

Belle

Its intent to kill or intent to commit GBH Link to CPS site

cats the intention to commit GBH which results in someone's death is manslaughter. There's a fine line in this case between manslaughter and murder in this case. He would have had to have held her for longer then 20 seconds unless he was very, very strong.

That isnt what the CPS website says.

I know of no cases at all where the CPS has had a sucessful murder conviction based on the intent to cause GBH cats. He researched the difference between manslaughter and murder, possibly in an attempt to wangle the lesser charge. At the end of the day, her parents have still lost a child and now he's making a mockery of our legal system.

If it was some horrible accident and he is a nice normal guy why didn't he call the police and confess - he calmly dumped her body in a pile of snow and carried on like normal.

There have been many murder cases where a person builds up to a murder over a long period of their life. We don't really know what "form" he has do we? Just because he has no criminal record. He could have been fantasising over this for a really long time. I think he is playing this up tremendously. All these crocodile tears...

You have a point Scarlett. He went to the supermarket, he sent a text to his girlfriend telling her that he was bored, he researched murder and manslaughter on the internet. Then there's all of the injuries she had, it doesn't add up.

According to his testimony today he sent the "bored" text before he killed her. (But it was sent at 9.25pm & previously the witnesses who heard screams said they were at around 9pm.)

Prosecution don't believe she "beckoned him in" either

No way did she bekon him

whether she beckoned him or not is just a matter of opinion though. There's no way any of us could know - we didn't know her. For all we know she might have received a piece of post of his in error and wanted to give it back/have taken in a parcel/in fact she might as he said, just have been a friendly person, on her own and thought she'd say hello to her neighbor.

And perhaps she'd had a previous bad experience which led her to scream as soon as he approached her in the way he did.

Am mainly playing devil's advocate here, but in truth there's no way you can any more say "she absolutely did not" than "he absolutely did" iyswim, because none of us were there, and none of us knew the individuals concerned.

This defence is surely a massive pile of shit, isn't it?

If somebody 'moves towards you as if to kiss you on the lips' you don't scream and scream, and if somebody does scream at you, you don't think 'best strangle them until they stop that unholy racket', you apologise and leave.

So flimsy, and so offensive - particularly concerned about the continual reference to him having 'misread the signals'.

It'll be for the Jury to decide on its shittiness.

There hasn't been much more reporting on the News today about the trial (edged out by news from Libya).

Agree elaine.

'misread the signals'

Popular defence to crimes by men against women. Juries don't find it flimsy nearly as often as they should. This one might though.

so what if he did misread the signals??

so what if he thought she wanted a quick one against the front door?

there is no circumstance at all, where it would be ok to strangle someone when you realised you'd got the suituation wrong!!

i read further down , someone saying that she had been texting men that day-wtf is that supposed to mean????
are you suggesting that she was somehow 'asking for it???'

I think the fact that Tabak has chosed to give evidence is very indicative of his ultra arrogant, sociopathic tendencies. A lot of the time defendents are advised not to give evidence as they will only dig themselves deeper into their own grave. Tabak is doing just this but thinks he is exonerating himself because he is supremely narcissistic. He is so deceitful and manipulative that he actually believes - IMHO - that he can get away with manslaughter and not murder.

I agree with other posters. he knew the boyfriend was away and decided to take his chances. He attempter to rape Joanna Yeates and she fought him off. He then murdered her and hid her body.
What an utter bastard.

'chosen' , sorry!

Imagine what Christmas will now mean for her poor wretched family...

He says he can't remember whether or not he looked into her eyes as he killed her. Bastard is guilty. I agree he's arrogant, he thinks he's very clever. I t would be interesting to see which cases he looked at online and if any compare to his own assisting him in fabricating his defense.

defense questioning now

Mr Lickley queries that whilst in Asda Tabak had the "presence of mind" to buy rock salt to grit an icy path.