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:
limitedperiodonly · 21/10/2011 00:00

edith normally I would agree with you about prejudging a case, especially when we're not there.

But after the last couple of days here I have grown very tired of rape myths and their champions, male and female and so have bitten.

But yes, you're right, let's wait for the verdict because this thread has been remarkably untrolled.

ElaineReese · 21/10/2011 09:47

I agree Edith, but for me it's not about saying 'oh I bet he dunnit, bet he has previous, bet this happened' etc - it's about saying that, as a line of defense, this is not only unconvincing (oh mwah mwah, approaches with puckered lips, hears screams, seeks to calm by strangulation) but also draws on a really dubious set of assumptions about 'misreading signals'.

Original poster
Ponders · 21/10/2011 12:49

The defence has got pathologist Nat Carey, who was a prosecution witness for Ian Huntley, & in the Ian Tomlinson hearing.

He is knocking big holes in the prosecution case

OP posts:
PercyFilth · 21/10/2011 12:54

No he isn't. He's agreed with 20 seconds, which is a long time to squeeze somebody's throat, and that has already been demonstrated.

Yeah, Huntley used the "I was only trying to stop her screaming" excuse and nobody fell for that then either.

judyo · 21/10/2011 13:07

Almost all the comments on this thread are predicated on the assumption that VT is telling the truth when he says he killed JY, BUT lying about almost everything else.
In fact there is more than one way to interpret Tabak's present behaviour, the weakness of his story, the fact that he doesn't remember much, and his incredulity at what he has done.
Sean Hodgson confessed to a prison chaplain and spent 27 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit.
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/09/false-confessions-sean-hodgson-courts
If you discount the confession the prosecution case is pretty weak IMO.

PercyFilth · 21/10/2011 13:11

So you think somebody else did it?

Original poster
Ponders · 21/10/2011 13:15

apart from the DNA, judyo

OP posts:
wannaBe · 21/10/2011 13:49

yes, he is knocking holes in the prosecution case.

The prosecution case is based on the assertion that the motive was sexual; the other injuries have been mentioned; and the pathologist has just discounted all of that. Broken nose consistent with the body being frozen; many of the injuries consistent with a fall/sustained after death. The only injury that he hasn't discounted is the injury to her arm and wrist.

Remember that the prosecution aren't trying to prove that Tabak Killed Joanna Yeates - we know that he did. They are trying to prove intent, and IMO their case is very weak.

He is one of the top pathologists in the country.

My dh used to work with his brother - just as an aside.

member · 21/10/2011 13:56

I strongly disagree he is knocking big holes in the prosecution case Ponders; he hasn't clearly supported the no struggle argument agreeing that there are grip marks on her wrist & injuries to the torso consistent with "grappling". Furthermore, he has supported the assertion that there can be a sexual element to strangulation!

EdithWeston · 21/10/2011 14:00

I noted that the press reports of today's medical evidence (which is continuing this afternoon) said some of the injuries could have been older than the attack and some could have been incurred when the body was being moved.

I thought I heard the the strangling was brief and involved moderate pressure. Has anyone else seen/heard an account of this?

wannaBe · 21/10/2011 14:12

"Furthermore, he has supported the assertion that there can be a sexual element
to strangulation!" yes, sexual. That has nothing to do with intent to kill. He stated that Joanna Yeates most probably died because her heart stopped rather than she couldn't breathe.

If in fact the defense took the argument that the strangulation was for sexual gratification which essentially went wrong when Joanna's heart stopped due to the point of her neck that was being gripped, the intent to kill falls by the wayside and it becomes manslaughter.

member · 21/10/2011 14:15

VT described "moderate pressure" when giving his evidence yesterday. Later on cross examination, he said that his lawyers had admitted moderate pressure was used.

Today, expert witness Dr Carey has said

compression of the neck can kill you quicker than it can take you to run out of air (hold your breath) says carey

1 hour ago

rupertevelynRupert Evelyn

Carey says it is surprising how quickly people can go unconscious or die from compression of the neck

1 hour ago

rupertevelynRupert Evelyn

Carey thinks death could be related to a 'sudden stoppage of the heart'

1 hour ago

»

rupertevelynRupert Evelyn

Carey says based on evidence here he would opt for a strangulation time of '20 seconds' but he accepts it an inexact science

wannaBe · 21/10/2011 14:19

he has also said most injuries appear to have happened after or while the body was moved, some due to the fact the body froze and then thawed. Also that some victims of strangulation can injure themselves during a struggle.

EdithWeston · 21/10/2011 14:20

Something went a bit awry with the layout there!

Evidence has been given on the cause of death - it was stoppage of the heart (I posted much earlier in the thread about the possibility it could be vagal inhibition).

This means she didn't die of strangling (so sexual strangling - which doesn't appear to have formed any part of the case) is not relevant. Also, the defence account of brief clutching going horribly wrong does seem - at this point - much more plausible.

wannaBe · 21/10/2011 14:20

what I found most Shock is that he said he has given evidence at two other strangulations this week. Shock Sad

EdithWeston · 21/10/2011 14:22

Sorry - all death is arguably stoppage of the heart - I think here it means the catastrophic effects of vagal inhibition. Ready to be corrected if anyone with proper medical expertise has a better grasp of this part of the evidence.

member · 21/10/2011 14:23

No, he said some injuries it was impossible to tell if they'd been caused ante/peri or post mortem.

wannaBe · 21/10/2011 14:24

yes it does.

It's a lot easier to want to be of the "the bastard is evil and should hang and obviously woke up with murder in mind" mentality. But the evidence doesn't actually support that.

I wouldn't want to be on that jury.

But reading the trial tweet by tweet gives a much greater insight than reading it in the papers.

judyo · 21/10/2011 14:27

Can't really comment on the DNA in detail. There are supposed to be useful comments on the Guardian and Indy websites but I can't find them. Tabak angrily disputed the DNA claims at the beginning. Perhaps there is less point now since the prosecution DNA evidence matches his current story ie he agrees he carried JY and so on. If he was pleading not guilty this would all have been more important and prob more time spent on it I guess.
What I haven't seen is any mention of his DNA in the flat, or mention of blood in the flat. The pathologist said the blood on the wall in the lane was not from any struggle. Greg doesn't mention seeing blood in the flat. Yet JY had been bleeding. So VT would have needed to clear up the flat (see the Amanda Knox case for how hard that is to do) as well as driving round aimlessly, visiting Asda etc, all in a very short timeframe before he collected his gf from the airport. There is no mention of him being scratched or disposing of his own clothes.
This is all very similar to the Luke Mitchell case, where a 14 yr old is supposed to have committed a very gruesome crime and cleaned up in an impossible timeframe.
All I am saying really is that to consider this with an open mind you need to consider all the possibilities, including the idea that he might be innocent.
Of course all this is speculation and everything we 'know' is filtered. For example, there was a huge fuss and speculation over the cider and yet we're now told that Greg drank some of it.

EdithWeston · 21/10/2011 14:45

Well as he's pleaded guilty to the killing, it must have happened. Or perhaps she didn't bleed in the flat? What is the evidence about her bleeding and where blood had been found?

winnybella · 21/10/2011 14:46

wannaBe- but holding someone's throat for 15-20 seconds is NOT a 'brief clutching' imo.

He didn't have to wake up with murder on his mind. It's enough if he decided to do it the moment he started strangling her, or few minutes before, for example.

winnybella · 21/10/2011 14:47

sorry, the first part of my post was to Edith, not wannaBe

winnybella · 21/10/2011 14:48

Dr. Carey says that death was clearly not instantenous.

wannaBe · 21/10/2011 14:50

the blood was on the wall where he left the body. iirc it was believed to be from where he tried to get it over the wall but failed.

EdithWeston · 21/10/2011 14:55

How long does vagal inhibition take?

Clearly he did clutch her throat, he's admitted this. I thought you could die from vagal inhibition in seconds (it's a reflex), so brief contact is sufficient.

Has anyone seen/heard the full medical evidence? Because as strangulation was not the cause of death (in the only account I've seen so far), then speculating on duration his hands were there seems increasingly beside the point.