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:
TheWorldisYourLobster · 21/10/2011 16:53

If the defence are trying to say that she was looking for male company that night (referring to the text messages she sent) and that she willingly invited VT into her flat for that purpose, why would she scream when he made a pass at her?

They can't have it both ways.

belledechocchipcookie · 21/10/2011 17:19

Women don't usually scream if a bloke tries to kiss them, they instinctivly move away. She must have been afraid. You also don't put your hands around the neck of a screaming woman, you'd back off and run. The defence will make the jury doubt everything, they will throw up all sorts of arguments because they want the jury to doubt what the prosecution has told them.

pickledsiblings · 21/10/2011 17:22

he didn't just lean in to kiss her but put his hands on her back - that seems a lot more 'threatening' to me, enough to make her scream maybe

PosiesOfPoison · 21/10/2011 17:30

I think that my fiurst reaction to his defense is the right one. I reckon he got into her flat by deception, said he was locked out or something, then he acting threatening, she screamed he finished her off.

JeremyVile · 21/10/2011 17:38

I know nothing about the law but it bugs me that a case like this could end in a manslaughter conviction.

If I was in charge I'd have it that any action intended to harm, and resulted in death, was murder.

So strangling someone - murder (you'd think that was obvious really)
A single punch to th head - murder.
Chucking a brick from a motorway bridge - murder.

belledechocchipcookie · 21/10/2011 17:43

Murder has to have a 'mental element' to it Jeremy, it has to be thought about before. A single punch to the head can be murder if the murderer knew that he/she was likely to kill the victim if they did this. There's certain places on the skull which are weaker then others. If the 'murderer' didn't know then it can't be murder. Chucking a brick off a bridge should be murder as the murderer had thought about his/her actions and knew it was likely to result in death. It doesn't matter who the victim was. I'd say strangulation is murder.

thunderboltsandlightning · 21/10/2011 17:55

You don't need to have a degree in physiology to know that strangling someone will kill them. It's like arguing that if you shoot someone you can't possibly know it might result in their death unless you've got a medical degree.

Why are people giving any credence to this man's lies? He's a proven liar and now he's in the dock lying to save his neck. He's a woman killing, woman-strangling liar.

member · 21/10/2011 18:02

According to him, he was totally ignorant of the consequences of squeezing someone's neck [hmmm]

member · 21/10/2011 18:02
Hmm
QuickLookBusy · 21/10/2011 18:09

The prosecution today suggested that

  • VT knew Joanna's bf was away [because a neighbour had told him in the morning].
-He somehow got hold of her cat [which had already been in VT's flat on a previous day] and used that as an excuse to knock on the door. -Joanna did struggle , she had over 40 injuries, so he must have know what he was doing.

I think is much more likely than the story VT has come up with.

EdithWeston · 21/10/2011 18:09

I don't think anyone is interested in giving credence - it's more a discussion on the testimony as presented to the trial so far, whilst trying not to get too far ahead of the evidence in speculation.

PercyFilth · 21/10/2011 18:59

It can only ever be speculation because he isn't going to tell the truth. Even if he did, he has told so many lies that you couldn't believe anything he said now.

If only cats could talk.

wannaBe · 21/10/2011 20:01

pf, but ultimately, this man is still innocent until proven guilty of murder.

It's not about giving credence or otherwise - the reality is, we don't know.

And while the argument that "well I tried to kiss her and she screamed and then I accidentally put my hand around her throat and she dropped dead," seems implausible, so does the argument put forward on here that he wanted to rape her and then when she struggled he killed her, because no sexual asalt took place. If he was that intent on a sexual crime then why didn't he do anything sexual to her?

We don't know that she didn't invite him in - maybe she was that friendly that she would invite a neighbor in for a drink. She clearly wasn't uncomfortable in male company if the defense statement that she called many of her male friends that night is to be believed. And no I am not implying anything by that - some people just are comfortable with people of the opposite sex without that having to mean anything.

Tbh I would have thought the prosecution would have called friends as character witnesses to testify that they didn't believe Joanna would have randomly invited the neighbor in if that possibility was so implausible.

winnybella · 21/10/2011 20:12

She could have invited him to have a drink with her. Or he could have knocked on her door under some pretext and then basically have invited himself.

But it doesn't matter, really, does it? The fact that she invited him would mean that he didn't plan the whole thing in advance, but that doesn't matter that he didn't murder her.

And re:sexual assault-this hasn't been ruled out, just deemed not very likely as her jeans were in place etc.

And he could kill her because she spurned his advances and he decided to punish her or he went mad etc- it didn't have to be sexually motivated attack or an unfortunate accident Confused It could be a number of other things.

winnybella · 21/10/2011 20:13

*doesn't mean that he didn't murder her

AyeScream · 21/10/2011 20:21

So what if she did invite him in?

She screamed (for whatever reason) and he wanted her to stop screaming, It doesn't really matter why she screamed. He had a number of choices at that point. Is it at all reasonable that he thought that strangling her would do so without killing her? That he thought that grabbing her by the throat/neck would be a more reasonable move than just getting the fuck away from her and leaving her in peace?

PercyFilth · 21/10/2011 20:21

I agree there is no reason to think she didn't ask him in. She may have assumed his gf was home and was going to invite both of them in, and it's quite likely she was planning to invite them to her party. But it's irrelevant really. All that counts is that he strangled her.

There really is no way in which that can have been an "accident". He could have stopped. He didn't. I've already given my opinion in earlier posts, so I won't repeat myself further here.

As for "If he was that intent on a sexual crime then why didn't he do anything sexual to her?", I don't claim that he set out to kill her at the outset, and I would imagine that finding himself with a dead body in his hands quelled his ardour somewhat.

AyeScream · 21/10/2011 20:27

"Oh, I didn't mean to kill her, I just wanted her to shut up"

"Oh, I didn't mean to rape her, I just thought she was a bit cold and that's why she was shaking"

"Oh, I didn't mean to push her down the stairs, I just wanted to get past her so I could make myself a butty downstairs"

I hope the jury are switched on.

Betelguese · 21/10/2011 20:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Ponders · 21/10/2011 20:43

the screams weren't heard inside the party, Betelguese - it was someone who'd come outside for a fag, & also a couple on their way to it (or passing by anyway) so it wasn't that loud.

But they did all hear 2 screams, which is what he says happened - scream, hand over mouth, release mouth, second scream, hand on throat

it's the hand on throat that makes the least sense to me (if his version of events isn't leaving anything out, which I doubt Hmm) - why not hand back on mouth & "stop screaming & I'll go away" if all he did was try to kiss her?

OP posts:
winnybella · 21/10/2011 20:46

"Death was clearly not instantaneous," said Dr Carey.
Dr Carey agrees that marks on Joanna's wrists were caused by them being gripped.
Dr Carey says he found a fracture of the cartilage of Joanna's voice box which was not found in first post mortem examination.
On the back of Joanna's neck there are marks made by finger nails, according to Dr Carey.
Dr Carey says he largely agrees with the evidence of the prosecution pathologist.

From skynewsgatherer. That's from the defense's pathologist.

winnybella · 21/10/2011 20:47

So tbh I don't see why what dr Crawley said would rule out murder.

aliceliddell · 21/10/2011 20:49

I still think his version of events relies heavily on the kind of nonsense Ayescream mentions. It's because this stuff is trotted out over and overr in films etc that people believe it has greater validity than their ow n experience. Which is rarely depicted.

PercyFilth · 21/10/2011 20:50

Dr Carey, not Crawley.

Original poster
Ponders · 21/10/2011 20:55

Dr Carey says he found a fracture of the cartilage of Joanna's voice box which was not found in first post mortem examination

I believe his was the 3rd such examination, & it was suggested somewhere some time (can't remember where I read it, sorry) that the fracture could have been caused by one of the previous pm examinations

I just put my own hand on my own neck & found I could easily squeeze my larynx & dig fingers into the back of my neck at the same time. His hand would be much bigger relative to her neck; he could have had one hand on her neck & have pulled her head against his chest with the other hand so not even seen her face while he was doing it

I had no idea it was so (relatively) easy to kill someone Confused

OP posts: