GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #15

[Curious Alice]

Delicate matters alert: a situation in which one pair of knickers might need laundering is when a woman starts a period unexpectedly. She would want to wash any bloodstain out pdq, not just toss the garment in the wash for later. Not saying this is what happened though.

Bathroom or laundry basket in the bedroom task surely, not the hallway.

The condition of the flat, coats and paraphernalia all over the hallway floor, broken pedestal with underwear and broken pieces on top....all seems really at odds with the way most of us live & Greg has said it was not normal.

All adds to the randomness of this case. Nothing is sitting right with me - from the pizza / cider/ clutter/ Bernard / injuries/ where he said it happened / where he placed her body afterwards / timescale - and no sensible explanation is being offered by the "accidental" killer.

 

[notsure]

It makes me think: he acted with calculation in removing the pizza and sock. They were significant to him. The briefs were not - he forgot those in the heat of the moment. The pizza - well, he was hungry, why not? And the sock: contained some unsavoury evidence. Whether or not he intended to do something with the briefs, we'll never know, but other things were more important to him at that time.

 

[Luna15]

Indeed - it's so easy to forget what you did with other people's underwear, isn't it ?

But to be serious, why ? Joanna was wearing her underwear when she was found. So these would be a different pair. If, like me, you are satisfied that he could not have been in the flat before her (no keys), he must have got them out of her drawer and put them there after killing her. I can't find a credible explanation for this. Can anyone ? I don't find the kinky thrill explanation very helpful ... he has her body right there if he wants it and the underwear on her, but instead he goes hunting elsewhere.

I do find it very plausable that they were on the radiator in the hall * and fell in the struggle - Greg said that it wasn't a normal place for the knickers to be - so where was the normal place? I wonder if he was asked this? was it was normal for them to be on the radiator? if so, it would be obvious that they fell off in the struggle and wouldn't be necessary for prosection to even mention it.... unless they were clutching at straws to make the suggestion of some sort of 'sexual intent', the only other thing they had was the way her top rode up as he tried to move her at Longwood Lane (which I think was likely)

* probably because I do exactly the same but cover with a towel to spare my :blushing: :blushing: at the sight of my 'Bridget Jones pants'

Is that right ? I didn't know that. I wasn't aware that Waitrose figured in his (admitted or alleged) movements on that night. I've missed the occasional day during the trial, it's so easy to have some important information slip past.

Is there a summary anywhere of what we know, what has been said in court so far ?

cant put my hand on the links but the jury were taken to Waitrose and they also saw the CCTV of JY in Waitrose.

 

[Sammyme]

Is that right ? I didn't know that. I wasn't aware that Waitrose figured in his (admitted or alleged) movements on that night. I've missed the occasional day during the trial, it's so easy to have some important information slip past.

Is there a summary anywhere of what we know, what has been said in court so far ?

That's the first time I've heard any mention of the jury viewing the Waitrose cctv images. What is the source for that, I wonder.

The nearest thing to a summary that I know of would be the daily press reports which summarise after a fashion the main events and highlights of the day in court.

 

[stmarysmead]

I believe that there was some reason VT could not leave JY alive in that apartment.

In every instance in thus case, although he now decries his behavior, his "conscience" (such as it exists) was repeatedly inadequate in preventing him from doing what was in HIS best interests.

Leaving aside the killing for the moment, one might think this young intelligent young man might immediately call for help if he had accidentally hurt his neighbor and was totally shocked by the circumstances. But his next steps were in his OWN interests, not JY's.

Instead he sets out to make the girl's remains "disappear" and goes to great lengths to set up an alibi to protect himself. Again, it's all about HIM.

Soon, the frantic family appears, making appeals, begging for help, VT is not moved by any of this. He continues his charade. He thinks only of himself.

And then, he decides to help put the punishment for his crime on his innocent landlord. Every single time,at every opportunity, VT chose himself. His ability to observe the suffering he has caused and show no remorse is stunning for a man who killed by accident and is supposedly "normal."

I still believe that the circumstances around the killing of JY contain a secret that he is still loathe to be made known. Let's examine his story...if a clumsy pass is all that happens, VT backs out the door, and later tells his girlfriend,"Good Lord, our neighbor is one hysterical individual. She freaked out over nothing." I think most men would jump back at a scream...not grab the woman, cover her mouth and put hands on her neck. None of this "fits."

There is something that happened that he had to kill to keep Jo from repeating. Maybe something her injuries would prove.

 

[Luna15]

That's the first time I've heard any mention of the jury viewing the Waitrose cctv images. What is the source for that, I wonder.

The nearest thing to a summary that I know of would be the daily press reports which summarise after a fashion the main events and highlights of the day in court.

These CCTV images of Joanna Yeates in Waitrose supermarket in Clifton, Bristol, were shown to the jury in the trial of Vincent Tabak yesterday

http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Joa...-held-throat/story-13589279-detail/story.html

The 12 members of the jury were taken there as they retraced Joanna's final movements.

They took her same route home on the evening she was killed, up Park Street and past the Bristol Ram pub, where she'd enjoyed drinks with colleagues.

They also went to a Waitrose supermarket ....

http://www.channel5.com/shows/5-news-2/features/jury-visits-joanna-yeates-flat

 

[Curious Alice]

cant put my hand on the links but the jury were taken to Waitrose and they also saw the CCTV of JY in Waitrose.

Of course :banghead: I'm an idiot ! They would have seen the footage for Jo. Bottom of the class Alice :blushing:

 

[Curious Alice]

It makes me think: he acted with calculation in removing the pizza and sock. They were significant to him. The briefs were not - he forgot those in the heat of the moment. The pizza - well, he was hungry, why not? And the sock: contained some unsavoury evidence. Whether or not he intended to do something with the briefs, we'll never know, but other things were more important to him at that time.

:tmi:I have just understood the possible sexual use for a sock :blushing::blushing::blushing: (For those of you that have seen American Pie, you'll get my drift, so sorry for being crude)

Perhaps a theory too far.

 

[weeeva]

Are there any women on this forum that would invite a stranger, albeit one she MIGHT recognise, into their home whilst they were alone, at night ? I know I would not.

If a male neighbour I hardly knew came ringing my doorbell at night for no particular reason but to be sociable, I would not let him in. Nor would I beckon him from the window.
I have a niece the same age as JY, who hates being on her own. She is always in the company of friends and family and gets bored when alone.
Now I don't know if the cat had anything to do with this. I had 2 cats, and I think if someone came to my door with my cat, and I knew the person was a neighbour, I think I could naturally warm to the person if they appeared to like my cat. Sounds silly but I think most folk with a pet would understand this. That, put together with JY being lonely and seemingly desperate for company, I can see her inviting the person in. My niece has cats and I can see her in the same situation as JY, being naive enough to invite the man in.

 

[Luna15]

Of course :banghead: I'm an idiot ! They would have seen the footage for Jo. Bottom of the class Alice :blushing:

no you're not.... at least our amnesia isn't 'selective' :wink:

 

[weeeva]

You're quite right Weeva: the point has not been legally proved. The prosecution have decided to do without it. But I think most of here have two different points of view simultaneously. In addition to following the trial (which depends on legally established facts and the prudent judgement of the jury), we are also still doing our best to reconstruct the most probable reality of what happened on Joanna's last night - and to do that we are entitled to use any available evidence, evaluated as we think it should be. After all, we are only trying to satisfy our own curiosity. Nothing is going to prove us right or wrong unless VT's amnesia suddenly clears up.

The prosecution (or the defence) could have called CJ, but neither did. We don't know why. At the very least I can guess : a highly articulate, somewhat unpredictable witness, with a grievance against the police and the press and the ability to give different impressions of the same events to different people, would be something of a liability in the witness box. The prosecution's task is not to reconstruct the entire evening's events to our satisfaction but to prove that VT killed her on purpose.

Ok Nausicaa. I see.
I am getting too carried away here and having palpitations.
I would be no good on a jury. I would be the one holding everyone back from deciding a verdict.

 

[notsure]

Yes, she wanted company that evening. But she wanted company of a friend. If she would have been happy for just any company, she would have stayed with her work colleagues a bit longer. She was not desperate for just any old company.

 

[Neurotripsy]

So I arrived in Bristol a few hours ago, I'm going to attempt to sit in on three days of the trial and try to squeeze in visits to Longwood Lane, Canynge Road, etc. I'm interested to see VT's body language (unless there really is nothing beyond "head in hands, staring at floor"!) and I'll report back on anything significant! Wish me luck getting in, getting up at 5:30AM to get ready to queue. x_x

 

[notsure]

:tmi:I have just understood the possible sexual use for a sock :blushing::blushing::blushing: (For those of you that have seen American Pie, you'll get my drift, so sorry for being crude)

Perhaps a theory too far.

Why is it a theory too far? What could be worse than snuffing the life out of another human being? If he could do that without betraying any emotion to anybody in the aftermath, anything else he did is necessarily less shocking.

 

[MMENJBRIT]

I don't think it takes a genius to prove that is him. Especially if they have him entering Waitrose as the picture of Jo entering and anyone entering the store is crystal clear, as they are so close to the camera.(unless he has his hand over his mouth that is). Bear in mind that at no time did he say he was in Waitrose and his statement from court via Rupert Evelyn puts him home at home at 8.10. As soon as he spots her his eyes follow her around the store , I wonder if she was aware of this. Real mystery to me why this has not come up although the jury have seen it. Wonder what cctv version they saw, or if it was cut.

VT suddenly notices JY in the grocery store, abandons the shopping cart and heads for home fast to lay in 'wait'?

 

[veggiefan]

I don't think it takes a genius to prove that is him.

Sorry. I appreciate that you are convinced, but to prove ]that he was in Waitrose you need something like a till ticket with his credit card number on it or at least a CCTV shot of his car close to the entrance.

It would be a huge risk for the prosecution to go down this speculative avenue because, if the defence were able to produce the guy in Waitrose who happened to look vaguely similar to VT, the jury would immediately start to wonder how much else of the prosecution's evidence (much of which is hardly convincing) might be purely speculative.

Despite VT's admission of manslaughter, I dare say that the jury will be aware (as we here all are) that LE managed to charge entirely the wrong person at the start of this year. I would therefore expect that they will (as indeed they should) demand a high level of proof.

 

[weeeva]

we do...

"She made a comment that Greg was also away and that she (was) also bored at home.

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16092566

Yes I know that Luna15.
You don't see what I am getting at.
I want to know if VT knew BEFORE he entered the flat.
Who informed him first CJ or JY??????????????????????????????????:banghead:
:banghead:

 

[Curious Alice]

So I arrived in Bristol a few hours ago, I'm going to attempt to sit in on three days of the trial and try to squeeze in visits to Longwood Lane, Canynge Road, etc. I'm interested to see VT's body language (unless there really is nothing beyond "head in hands, staring at floor"!) and I'll report back on anything significant! Wish me luck getting in, getting up at 5:30AM to get ready to queue. x_x

I know the property where they lived as it is just round the corner from my son's old flat (he was living there at the time of JY's death) and I now know where the quarry is having driven past (the end of the road) on my way to the airport - must say I got nothing much by the way of insight from those locations. Am familiar with Waitrose as well, having bought my sons food parcels there on many occasions.

We saw a small gathering outside the Court (when I was in Bristol for a meeting last week, just a couple of streets away.) I did once go to an Attempted Murder trial when I was doing my RMN training, it's very interesting. Look forward to your report, hope you don't find it too distressing.

 

[Luna15]

So I arrived in Bristol a few hours ago, I'm going to attempt to sit in on three days of the trial and try to squeeze in visits to Longwood Lane, Canynge Road, etc. I'm interested to see VT's body language (unless there really is nothing beyond "head in hands, staring at floor"!) and I'll report back on anything significant! Wish me luck getting in, getting up at 5:30AM to get ready to queue. x_x

be a bit careful what you are reporting back from the courtroom, just in case it jeopardises anything.

Best of Luck Neurotripsy. X

 

[weeeva]

Whatever happened, gripping wrists so as to cause marks and injury suggests to me force, coercion, restraint. Was he gripping her wrists in trying to pin her down and overcome her? We may never know but clearly there was something going on that was a great deal more than merely offering to kiss someone who he thought wanted a kiss. It is as baffling as ever to understand what he embarked upon that night and why he killed a young woman. His own story of events doesn't explain it.

No his story does not explain anything does it? If the marks on JY's wrists were caused by him restraining her, that could have caused her to scream.
I think JY thought she was going to be raped. Poor girl.