[QUOTE=notsure;6452088]His explanation for that would be panic and cowardice. He probably thinks it's preferable to be accused of that than murder.[/QUOTE
The defence could not plead that on his behalf, or if they did it would be ripped to shreds by the prosecution, he gave an interview to the press stating that 'clifton is a lovely, quiet, affluent area, things like this dont happen round here, how sad' and all the time he was the perpetrator. Xmas dinner with the gf's parents, a chalet in holland with his family and calling a
family meeting whilst there ................ evil, cunning planning more like !!
Plenty couldn't believe he could have killed JY. There's nowt so strange as folk as they say, and we've yet to discover how relevant that saying is where VT is concerned.
As murder is a crime of specific intent, if the defendant cannot show diminished responsibility from brain damage caused by alcohol, if he was so drunk or drugged at the time of the killing as to be unable to form the intent to kill, or cause grievous bodily harm, he will be acquitted of murder.
However he is still liable to be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter .......
I don't think his actions after the event, ie removing the body etc, affect whether the charge is murder or manslaughter. That's defined by actions before and during the event - principally whether or not he intended to kill.
On the other hand his actions after the event are likely to affect the sentence he receives. Had he called the emergency services immediately and come clean, things would be very different.
... although I would suspect that the defendant in this case might find it difficult to demonstrate that the 'unlawful act' was one "which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm"
Really? That surprises me. I mean, if something has happened that you didn't intend to happen, it's done and can't be undone .... I can't see how trying to evade detection necessarily indicates that there was intent. It seems like separate offences to me. Do you mean that if the cover-up was done well enough, it implies that the whole lot was premeditated?
A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,
(a)shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but
(b)shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.
On the basis that the jury must take account of "all the evidence" and can draw "such inferences ... as seem proper", I would argue that a jury could indeed infer intent from a defendant's post-hoc actions and behaviour.
And so to answer the question, I imagine that the prosecution will argue that the jury should infer that the necessary intent was present based on the evidence of the cover-up after the fact. I also imagine that the defence will argue something quite different.
Last edited by aneurin; 05-09-2011 at 02:18 PM. Reason: Answering the question
OK ... I can see how that might work.
In this case, though, I can't imagine any likely way that this was a premeditated murder, given what we know so far. But who knows what surprises may be in store.
Good essay Q & A article below which is worth a read for scenarios to do with intoxication
In VT's case, if reports were true, then he was seen arriving home on his bike at around 7pm. Was he sober at that point? I've never tried to ride a bike whilst stoned or drunk but would imagine were I to try to do so I might appear a tad wobbly to any onlookers.
If he were so off his head with booze or drugs just a couple of hours later so as to kill somebody and claim not to have known what he was doing, then at what point afterwards did he become lucid enough not only to realise what he'd done but to clear up after himself afterwards to conceal the crime too?
I'd hazard a guess he might claim it was "just" an accident. Something along the lines of them crossing paths in some form, her panicking after he's "unwittingly" scared her, him panicking and just trying to stop her from screaming out and then "accidentally" strangling her when he only meant to stop her crying out.
"There are two special defences to murder, diminished responsibility and murder ..."
Neither is a defence to murder, they're "partial defences to murder" as they "bear all the ingredients of murder but if successfully argued, reduce the offence to an act of 'voluntary manslaughter' not murder"
"Being a special defence, available only to those charged with murder it will lead to a reduction in sentence to match the offence of voluntary manslaughter."
Diminished responsibility IS voluntary manslaughter so that's no surprise.
"There are three elements to this defence and they are, that there must have been an abnormality of mind in the defendant, that the abnormal mind must have been caused by an inside source and that it must have been such that it substantially impairs the defendants mental responsibility."
Caused by an inside source? Do they mean "arose from a recognised medical condition". And in addition to the fact that it "substantially impairs the defendants mental responsibility" it must also provide an "explanation for the defendant's acts and omissions". Otherwise what would be the point?
I'd better stop there. I haven't got to the bottom of page 1 yet. It might be 'worth a read' but the author does not appear to have quite mastered the material.
Good point Goldieloxs
He can say what he likes, only poor Jo knows the truth, and he knows that.
Hello suspicious minds
Do you happen to post on Tabak thread @ HLM's McCann Site on the "How & Why Did Vincent Tabak Murder Jo?" thread?
I dance regularly between these threads - posting more over there, reading here lately. I see distinctly similar words here as posted over there. And in same time-frames. Interesting.
Some of my comments on Saturday, included:
"The heinous act of Tabak acting casual - and then allowing CJ to "take the rap while acting normal" in front of family and friends; that Tabak may have assumed Jo had either gone ahead of GR or was following him up country - and thought the flat was empty ... JY returns - he's there - caught out - Tabak pounces;
that he flies out of he country, summonses a family meeting - sans children, distancing himself from all knowledge - while his friend and neighbour/LL is in jail the very days he's enjoying New Years...
That he *had* to kill her; In his mind it was shoot the messenger, because whatever he perceived JY knew about him (or caught him doing), was certainly going to come out; instead he murdered JY, that act simply became Plan B because she meant nothing to him (as evidenced by dumping her on the edge of the street ... Plan B became just another project he would master. He thought he could get away with it ... "
And lots more comments, too
The pizza was gone - and this man takes it? What kind of a person picks up a pizza after murdering someone .... and goes "Hmmmm, I'll have that, thank you very much?". IMO, that he took it under those circumstances, as vile an act that is to ('scuse the pun), swallow, is stunning. IF ... this was an accident, he would be painfully remorseful; in a panic. He'd more likely consider THROWING UP ... not ADDING TO his stomach contents. Beggars belief.
All we know is neither the pizza nor the packaging was ever found and there was a manhunt out for it. Could it have had his DNA of while commissioning the crime? Possible. Could that have been the sobbing woman? On Saturday 18th VT handed me a mazorella pizza for lunch? We don't know. Can only speculate. Lots we won't know until October.
Also - I posted this ther too: ... *what if* ... the significant item discovered in Aberdeen Road was Jo's necklace? And WHAT IF ... once the autopsy complete and Jo's belongings returned, the necklace was handed back to Jo's family? And WHAT IF ... Jo's mum purposely wore it @ the funeral as a strong message "look, we know ... we've got it back..." ?
Was just a thought I had... interesting. Any views? Pleading m/s is because the Crown clearly has staggering evidence - m/s is his chance for that to be accepted and his horrendous deeds don't come out. I go for Murder 1. Let's seek what lurks beneath this man. For him to come close to a confession means they have something irrefutable. To risk this man getting off would too huge a chance for them to take.
Yes, months ago I posted the stalking / spy theory. Shot down in flames for it. I still stick with that. If alcohol was the trigger, we;; he left one and half bottles cider behind.
The man is evil. If this was genuinely m/slaughter ... then after such an "accident" how could Tabak walk act so callously after that ... being "perfectly normal" to everyone else. I know how. He's a psychopath. And many of us have been around crime long enough to know that monsters don't approach people with horns and red-arrow tails. They look *normal*
These are my theories. Not fact ... but I remain convinced about the stalking issue. Some may have come around - I've always been *around there*.
Just stating my views, thoughts and opinions. Not here to inflame - but to offer what I think. Sure, I may be 100% wrong. But ... my hinky meter is ticking. Big time!
PS: will post thoughts at both sites hence forward ...
Just oe more thing ... there are those who feel we have no right to judge VT. Well, my reply is that had he not done what he did - there would not be judgment at all. He has *confessed*. We are entitled to our opinions and to hash this story out.
Not all of us will be spot on - and as I also said stated elsewhere Sat & Sun - this not about being *right*. This is about interpretations and understanding. That I feel VT's vast experience as a people flow monitor (stuck record, keep saying this) is his job. He's an architect, knows the lay of the land - has experience in buildings ad people; was his job to study people. He has a PhD on the subject.
He considers himself a master of the art. We know psychopaths border narcissism. Suddenly, this genius has a lovely lass come and live right under his nose. Look at the floorplans - see the proximity of the flats.
And if folk think "oh, that's just ludicrous" ... then I daresay millions of burglaries happen and will continue to happen ... BECAUSE THEY FIND A WEAK SPOT to gain entry. For all we know, Jo may have left a window open - if not through ceilings. Nothing is impossible. Now we have a genius - well capable of creating a stalking feature ... right next door.
The way he acted after her murder has convinced me of this theory. And all he is doing is protecting himself. the same reason he murdered JY, IMO. To protect himself. Jo didn't have a chance, poor lass.
Huntley didn't have the same passionate "nay-sayers" ... [edited in to re-phrase ... didn't have same support] perhaps because he was not as "nice, likeable, intelligent, decent, friendly, wealthy" guy as VT? Or perhaps because his arrest and the shock of it being 2 little girls kept those looking for an argument away from the fairies.
Again - I am *not* saying my understanding is fact. This is simply my interpretation of events as I see them to be.
Just sayin ...
Have a great day - see y'all later.
Last edited by PolkSaladAnnie; 05-10-2011 at 10:03 AM. Reason: Advised ETA above
I believe there is staggering evidence; irrefutable. So much so VT had no option but to admit his hand in all of it. He hoped m/s would be accepted. Now it's going to trial. Jo deserves that. So do her loved ones & GR. And I am personally 100% with the Crown on gunning for murder ... I's not my opinion this was an accident "gone wrong". Jo surprised VT. He used force in his aggr4ession to retaliate a real perceived threat. He had to silence Jo forever.
Insane? Drunk? Accident? It's all in VT's head - the whyfore and wherefore:
If anything, any dwelling upon the character-assessment will be, IMO, to get to the heart of the jury … to show Tabak as a person, not a killer. Why? To be lenient in sentencing – because he is going to be sentenced.
That he’s admitted manslaughter, admits he did it. He cannot now change to a plea of insanity – which in and of itself has a very broad and complex series of “layers” to determine what depth of insanity prevails here. Being insanely-drunk has its legal (complex) limitations in such as case, too.
Can he say he was drunk - didn't know? Won't work IMO. Is he insane? Nope.
Nevertheless, the trial would, I’d figure, do some head-investigating – because although it’s not encumbent upon the court to prove WHY … the jury will want to know why. The public want to know. Psychiatrists will also want to prod this one. So his head will definitely be read. And in “reading” his mind, I feel his personal fantasies – quirks and quididities if you will, stand to be fully exposed – much to his chagrin.
And the reason his risked what he did, again IMO, is because if he didn’t kill Jo, she was going to lay charges and report him. He couldn’t handle that. He had to shoot the messenger … and deal with Plan B as best he could. As a man with no feelings of guilt or remorse, Jo’s death became another tricky project for him to master.
And he failed.
Last edited by PolkSaladAnnie; 05-10-2011 at 10:04 AM.
Protecting himself. Jo was a random arbitrary "specimen" to him. Whereas he felt nothing for her when she died .... I truly believe he is blaming her *now* for the situation he is in. As "if she hadn't come home that night ... I wouldn't be here." To VT it's all about HIM. It's all HER fault. Zero compassion, remorse, IMO
Furthermore, arguing strangulation (outside of self-defense, etc) is a very difficult "accident" to prove. Strangulation takes a long time - the victim usually fights back. There is a point at which the killer could stop.
Continuing the crime ... may be deemed premeditated: (the desire to finish the victim off).
JMHO ... as always
I think his explanation for what happened to the pizza is going to be crucial, as you say Polk. If he's claiming that he didn't kill her in cold blood, but due to some kind of temporary insanity or accident, how on earth is he going to explain away the fact that he ate the pizza? Why would he throw it away, even if he had touched the box? Why not just wipe off his fingerprints, as he presumably did from other items? It does appear disturbingly likely that he did actually eat it.