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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some reports on the early morning police visit Monday 20th December:


Mr Reardon – who had unsuccessfully tried to contact Miss Yeates on the Friday night, returned home Sunday to find her missing, with signs of a disturbance and her phone, keys and wallet still in the flat – made a 999 call to police early on Monday, December 20.

The report prompted a missing person inquiry, with house-to-house inquiries in Canynge Road. Police knocked on Tabak's door at Flat 2, Number 44, at 4.15am and introduced him to Mr Reardon for the first time. Tabak looked just awoken, a little vague and confused but "relatively calm", Mr Lickley said. http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/CCTV...ar-boot-Asda/story-13529050-detail/story.html

@jonkay01 Prosecution: Police knocked on VT's door at 0415 after JY reported missing. Police said he seemed "relatively calm" and "knew nothing"

@rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn When police "commenced house to house inquiries" the first flat they went to was Vincent Tabak's

If I've pieced the tweets together correctly then the police in this instant is DC Thomas who spoke to both VT and TM. It is at this point that VT says he has been home all that night and had heard and seen nothing, citing "thick walls" between the flats.

Are alarm bells not screaming in TM's head?

"Home alone? You texted me you were in Asda, You said you were bored!"
 
For an intelligent man, who we know did his research after the crime, he really didn't do a great job of trying to cover his tracks did he. What strikes me most is the fact that the day after killing her he was on the Avon & Somerset website, and a few days after that looking on Google Earth at the exact spot he dumped her body. If you were going to do that then you'd think he'd have had the sense not to use his own or his work computer to do it, or to only use his own computer and get shot of it for a new one pretty sharpish.

There's been no mention of him having his car valeted either. That's not to say he didn't but if you'd had a body in your car I'd have thought cleaning it or even getting rid of it would be extremely high on your "things to do" list afterwards.

It still beggars belief that CJ was hauled in, when the real and most obvious culprit managed to slip so seemingly easily under the radar and for so long.
 
He said he had just got home when he text TM at 7:15. If it was him, he must have went out again to be in Waitrose at 8:10. This guy appeared to move quickly towards her as if he wanted to cross her path. It's strange the police released other CCTV images in the shops on her way home but not this one.
 
I see who you are referring to Sammyme, I am not sure if the guy who comes back into shot and heads towards the trolley (I cant see him put anything in the trolley?) is the same guy.

This guy (who appears to abandon trolley) has a shoulder bag.... could the bag be carrying a camera? .... this would have been the time he said he went for a walk to take photographs wouldn't it?

Having said that... he could be a normal shopper, who looks around just after Jo has walked past him, he could realise that what he wants is in another ailse far away and cant be bothered to lug the trolley.... I've done it many a time.... I've also deliberately failed to see many a neighbour in the supermarket.

Luna, I've just re-watched it, using numerous stops and starts, instead of letting it run straight through in normal play mode in which everything was moving very fast. When I first watched it, I spotted a figure heading towards the trolley, holding an item and reaching the trolley. It cuts off rather abruptly but on that quick viewing I saw it as him putting it in the trolley.

Now, having re-watched it, I may have to agree with you that it is possibly a different figure. Both were in dark clothing and the first figure had something protruding from his side silhouette, which you say was a shoulder bag. Also having paused it about every single second of play towards the final few seconds, I don't think he actually went to the trolley and put something in it although he was heading towards it and did go very close to it. Again it cut off abruptly but I think he may have gone to the right of the trolley and the item he was carrying may have been a shopping bag or basket or something of that sort. Anyway, having looked at the possibly two figures involved, I did not form the impression that either was VT but I couldn't be at all sure about that.
 
Posted by brownbread in previous thread



Thing is, I'm not sure they do have to. I think they need to give a believable account of the act of stangulation and they need to show how it could have been "without intent" but I don't think they need to say why he did it.

I don't think they need to provide a motive but I stand to be corrected....

I don't think they are compelled to provide an explanation of why he did it - more that I feel that if they don't provide any explanation of the context of events which led up to it, then it undermines their argument.

We can assume we'll get SOME level of detail, as the jury have already been instructed to pay attention to the kitchen window and the fact this is how the defence claim the first saw each other that night. That doesn't have much relevance if not set in some context.
 
VT accepts his actions were unlawful, you got that one right Mate!!!
 
Does anyone know the minimum and maximum sentences for
manslaughter and murder?

Does the judge make this decision ie. duration of sentence?

The starting point for sentencing for murder is 15 years. There are then guidelines (depending on severity) in respect to other starting points of 25 years, 30 years and "whole life" tariffs may be warranted.

On top of that mitigating and aggravating features will be taken into consideration when calculating a sentence - I think only a maximum of 5 years or 1/6 of the sentence can be knocked off for mitigating features. Aggravating features can include a sexual element or concealing the body afterwards, to name a couple off the top of my head.

On of the biggest impacting differences between a sentence for manslaughter and murder is that someone released after serving a sentence for murder remains "on licence" for the rest of their lives after release ie they can be recalled to prison for the slightest of misdemeaners at any time until they die. They also must serve a minimum term before they can be even considered for parole, which they aren't guaranteed to get.

With a manslaughter conviction (unless given a life sentence) they will be released at the two-thirds or at worst three quarter point (I think thats still the case) of their sentence and then remain "on licence" only until the end of that sentence ie if they were given lets say 12 years - they may be released on licence after 8 years, then remain on licence until 12 years have passed and then thats it where being recalled to prison for any reason is concerned.

Sentence wise for manslaughter a life sentence is discretionary (compared to it being mandatory for murder). There's no minimum - the judge decides, and sentencing is based on past precedent (ie previous cases) and formal sentencing guidelines.
 
For an intelligent man, who we know did his research after the crime, he really didn't do a great job of trying to cover his tracks did he. What strikes me most is the fact that the day after killing her he was on the Avon & Somerset website, and a few days after that looking on Google Earth at the exact spot he dumped her body. If you were going to do that then you'd think he'd have had the sense not to use his own or his work computer to do it, or to only use his own computer and get shot of it for a new one pretty sharpish.

There's been no mention of him having his car valeted either. That's not to say he didn't but if you'd had a body in your car I'd have thought cleaning it or even getting rid of it would be extremely high on your "things to do" list afterwards.

It still beggars belief that CJ was hauled in, when the real and most obvious culprit managed to slip so seemingly easily under the radar and for so long.

I wouldn't say VT was 'the most obvious' culprit by a wide margin.

If he hadn't done such a lousy job of covering his tracks, he could easily never have been caught. If he'd done a decent job of hiding the body, and had taken the precaution of taking her bag/coat/shoes from the house, then the chances are this would have been treated as a missing person case that would have faded into obscurity for everyone except Jo's friends and loved ones who would have been left with the torment of uncertainty.
 
For an intelligent man, who we know did his research after the crime, he really didn't do a great job of trying to cover his tracks did he. What strikes me most is the fact that the day after killing her he was on the Avon & Somerset website, and a few days after that looking on Google Earth at the exact spot he dumped her body. If you were going to do that then you'd think he'd have had the sense not to use his own or his work computer to do it, or to only use his own computer and get shot of it for a new one pretty sharpish.

There's been no mention of him having his car valeted either. That's not to say he didn't but if you'd had a body in your car I'd have thought cleaning it or even getting rid of it would be extremely high on your "things to do" list afterwards.

It still beggars belief that CJ was hauled in, when the real and most obvious culprit managed to slip so seemingly easily under the radar and for so long.

I doesn't matter what computer he uses, his works ISP and his home ISP keep records of the searches he would be performing. All ISP's have to do that by law.

Of course LE would have taken his computer also which is a bonus, but it is not essential for them as a record of what sites he visited. LE may of checked the ISP's in question while building a case and without his knowledge. Perhaps LE had to wait a while to get the records, hence while they pulled in CJ for questioning, re VT dropping himself in it by blaming his landlord. For all we know CJ might have been a ploy by LE to convince VT that he was getting away with it.

VT dropped himself in it by phoning LE in Holland.

He'd been better off of using an Internet cafe or a library for his 'research' so long as he wasn't spotted on CCTV doing so.

IMO for LE it was like a ball of 'VT string' that as soon as they started tugging on more of it unravelled.

Valeting his car would have been a real give away although he could have done it later by himself or paid to have it done, again having paid for that kind of service would be a real give away. Perhaps he was clever enough not to clean it, thinking it would arouse suspicion?
 
Not sure why I'm so anti-VT before hearing the whole trial - well, besides the fact he admitted manslaughter and at his hands the death of someone who seemed imminently likable - as, in U.S. cases, I'll go to the floor to defend unpopular litigants up to and perhaps beyond a jury finding them guilty. What is it about this guy. Jeesh. I pour upon his head abject scorn.
 
Not sure why I'm so anti-VT before hearing the whole trial - well, besides the fact he admitted manslaughter and at his hands the death of someone who seemed imminently likable - as, in U.S. cases, I'll go to the floor to defend unpopular litigants up to and perhaps beyond a jury finding them guilty. What is it about this guy. Jeesh. I pour upon his head abject scorn.

So you're not :fence: then
 
I agree that the trolley guy and VT have a similarities. If police has also noticed it then it wouldnt be problem to find it out as the guy in store seems to be talking to phone. Not a problem to check the list of the calls.

But I start to wonder why there was her green striped jumper inside the rucksack on the dining room table. Isnt it strange that she wore it during her way home and it wouln´t be usual to put the jumper in the bag when arriving home. i would throw it on a bed or sofa but not inside the bag! And why would anyone else do this?

If you look at the CCTV of Jo in 'The Ram' she has a short sleeveless top on, she probably got hot in the pub and put her jumper in her rucksack then and just wore her thick ski jacket home over her short sleeve top.
 
If I've pieced the tweets together correctly then the police in this instant is DC Thomas who spoke to both VT and TM. It is at this point that VT says he has been home all that night and had heard and seen nothing, citing "thick walls" between the flats.

Are alarm bells not screaming in TM's head?

"Home alone? You texted me you were in Asda, You said you were bored!"

I suppose sometimes love really is blind ... and deaf.
 
It was winter, most men will be wearing coats of similar length.

I am saying that in both those shots the measurements are the same body length, leg length. Yes all men wear similar jackets because it is cold but how would they fit if they were smaller or taller. less jacket measurement if taller, more jacket measurement if shorter . Outer coats don't all fit a perfect length. But whoever this guy is in Waitrose,( I think it is him) his coat length and leg length match exactly as VT in Asda. I thought he seemed to almost push the trolley in front of Jo then he seemed to be agitated and walked out of the shop.
 
I suppose sometimes love really is blind ... and deaf.

Yes I guess. She must have pieced it all together at some point. Poor girl. Hopefully in time she'll find somebody decent she can really trust.
 
If I've pieced the tweets together correctly then the police in this instant is DC Thomas who spoke to both VT and TM. It is at this point that VT says he has been home all that night and had heard and seen nothing, citing "thick walls" between the flats.

Are alarm bells not screaming in TM's head?

"Home alone? You texted me you were in Asda, You said you were bored!"

When this police visit occurred, they didn't know for sure that JY had gone missing on the Friday night so the discussion probably encompassed the whole weekend. If in the course of explaining where they were all weekend and what they saw/heard, VT said he was at home on Friday night then TM might not have had any concerns at all because from her perspective, he WAS at home apart from a brief interlude at Asda. Also, at that point there was no indication to TM that any harm had come to JY. If your next door neighbour goes missing, it's likely that the last person you'd suspect of being involved in any abduction/assault is your partner who you know well and love. I can easily imagine that she'd have no alarm bells re: VT at that point.
 
Yes I guess. She must have pieced it all together at some point. Poor girl. Hopefully in time she'll find somebody decent she can really trust.

That realisation must have been a nightmare. I bet she couldn't get away quickly enough when the truth dawned on her.
 
That realisation must have been a nightmare. I bet she couldn't get away quickly enough when the truth dawned on her.

I expect she was told by LE after he was arrested, my guess?
 
I'm surprised that it hasnt been reported but during a 'live' Sky broadcast outside the court at lunchtime, the reporter said how GR had testified that there was a broken pedestal in the hall with Jy's underwear on it (it wasn't made clear if that was an unusual place for her underwear to be) but maybe the 'broken' pedestal was what made the parents realise that there had been an 'incident'.... have searched for the footage but Sky have updated their report now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
2,224
Total visitors
2,421

Forum statistics

Threads
589,955
Messages
17,928,266
Members
228,016
Latest member
ignoreme123
Back
Top