GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #13

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
goldielox said:
(Apologies if this has already been posted)

VT's flat is available for rent. Described as "newly refurbished" ...I suppose had they added "newly refurbished...after being ripped apart by the cops" wouldn't have quite the same ring to it would it

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-29859883.html


Here's the flat again on another site

http://www.findaproperty.com/displayprop.aspx?edid=00&salerent=1&pid=8762094

I wonder quite how recently that "newly installed" bathroom was installed
Click to expand...

CJ owns both flats so the fact that this flat is for rent whereas Jo's flat isn't, suggests to me that the prosecution case rests on her not being killed in this flat but her own. If she had been killed in VT's flat, that's the one the jury would be taken to and it wouldn't now be up for rental.
 
Ok can we clear up a few things that seem to be dragging on in the above posts.

This type of property does not have enough space between the ceiling and the floor above for a person to crawl through. So the idea that anyone made their entry into the flat through the ceiling can be totally dismissed.

Although a doorway existed prior to the property being divided into individual flats it has long since been removed, filled in with bricks and plastered over. Any attempt to reopen the doorway would have been so obvious that it would have alerted the Police immediately and Tabak would have been eating his Christmas turkey at Her Majesties pleasure.

So if Tabak entered J's flat he did so either through the front door or through a window. Judging by the level of forensic analysis of the doors etc I think we can safely assume that entry was not forced.

Also the idea that Tabak was some sort of sneaky people spy who installed cameras in hidden spaces is somewhat ridiculous. He was an analyst who built complex computer models not some kind of grubby third rate private detective.
 
Chester said:
Ok can we clear up a few things that seem to be dragging on in the above posts.

This type of property does not have enough space between the ceiling and the floor above for a person to crawl through. So the idea that anyone made their entry into the flat through the ceiling can be totally dismissed.

Although a doorway existed prior to the property being divided into individual flats it has long since been removed, filled in with bricks and plastered over. Any attempt to reopen the doorway would have been so obvious that it would have alerted the Police immediately and Tabak would have been eating his Christmas turkey at Her Majesties pleasure.

So if Tabak entered J's flat he did so either through the front door or through a window. Judging by the level of forensic analysis of the doors etc I think we can safely assume that entry was not forced.

Also the idea that Tabak was some sort of sneaky people spy who installed cameras in hidden spaces is somewhat ridiculous. He was an analyst who built complex computer models not some kind of grubby third rate private detective.
Click to expand...

When was the flat put up for rent, was it before the last court appearance. Maybe they thought he was going to get away with manslaughter.

Who is going to would rent a flat in the knowledge that a jury will soon be snooping near your property or garden.

As well as reported as bricked up, QUOTE Police want to ensure the blocked door had not been recently disturbed. Police are checking to see if the door had been recently opened.

Like Goldiloxs said he was not arrested until he came back after Christmas He would not have been a suspect or in prison because the police had already questioned him and they were holding CJ on suspicion so it was later that the door became an issue

Maybe not a grubby third rate private detective but pretty sneaky if he went through a window.
 
I don't know if he would have risked getting into the flat while she was away. For all he knew, she was coming home, possibly with friends, so it would have been too risky.

My feeling is this: he knew GR was away that night, so he got the idea that he would go round and invite JY in for a drink. He had noticed her and built up some kind of fantasy about her, fuelled by what he heard through the connecting wall. Maybe the fact that she didn't accompany GR on his trip made VT think the relationship wasn't that strong.

VT's slightly shy with women, so he has a few drinks to give him courage to go to her door. He waits and waits, but she doesn't arrive home at the usual time. He carries on drinking (maybe even drugs as well - who knows?), and then, at around 8.30 he hears her arrive home. He has had far too much to drink by now, but he's in a reckless state of mind, so he goes round and rings the doorbell. She doesn't realise at first that he is drunk, so she lets him in. Perhaps he stumbles and gives himself away. She realises he's drunk and tells him to leave, but instead he makes a pass at her. He kills her to silence her when she screams in panic.

VT is likely to confess to all of the above, but claim diminished responsibility due to temporary insanity caused by alcohol/drugs.
 
notsure said:
VT is likely to confess to all of the above, but claim diminished responsibility due to temporary insanity caused by alcohol/drugs.
Click to expand...

Dont see how he can with all the planning that went into hiding body after the event, letting LL potentially take the rap, his interview with the Express etc. etc.
 
Suspicious Minds said:
Dont see how he can with all the planning that went into hiding body after the event, letting LL potentially take the rap, his interview with the Express etc. etc.
Click to expand...

His explanation for that would be panic and cowardice. He probably thinks it's preferable to be accused of that than murder.
 
notsure said:
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 !!
Click to expand...
 
Chester said:
Also the idea that Tabak was some sort of sneaky people spy who installed cameras in hidden spaces is somewhat ridiculous. He was an analyst who built complex computer models not some kind of grubby third rate private detective.
Click to expand...

An analyst who built complex computer models he may be, but that doesn't mean he's above "grubby third rate" subterferge. He hasn't been above killing somebody either so whilst we've yet to find out whether he has or has not been a peeping tom I wouldn't say it was at all ridiculous at this point to speculate about what he could have been up to.

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.
 
Suspicious Minds said:
notsure said:
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 !!
Click to expand...

I know: I'm just trying to imagine what his defence could possibly be. Difficult, to say the least!
Click to expand...
 
notsure said:
VT is likely to confess to all of the above, but claim diminished responsibility due to temporary insanity caused by alcohol/drugs.
Click to expand...

In that scenario, since his condition was self induced by alcohol/drugs, it wouldn't be a defence.
 
goldielox said:
An analyst who built complex computer models he may be, but that doesn't mean he's above "grubby third rate" subterferge. He hasn't been above killing somebody either so whilst we've yet to find out whether he has or has not been a peeping tom I wouldn't say it was at all ridiculous at this point to speculate about what he could have been up to.

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.
Click to expand...


I agree goldielox and better being a 'grubby third rate detective' than a murderer!!

If he can murder and then carry on as he did afterwards I wouldnt rule out the peeping tom theory at all, it seems in this case almost anything could be possible of VT.
 
notsure said:
Suspicious Minds said:
I know: I'm just trying to imagine what his defence could possibly be. Difficult, to say the least!
Click to expand...

The defence may come up with something farcical, he could make anything up as to what happened on the night but it will be the job of the prosecution to disprove that and hopefully they have overwhelming evidence in order to do so. With last weeks events it seems they must have to reject the m/s plea and go for murder charge against him.
Click to expand...
 
goldielox said:
In that scenario, since his condition was self induced by alcohol/drugs, it wouldn't be a defence.
Click to expand...

Apparently it can,

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.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/

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"
 
Cherwell said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't know about that. I think the jury is permitted to infer intent based on his actions after the event.
 
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?
 
Cherwell said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 :-

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 204 more.
Total: 4,654 (members: 205, guests: 4,449)

Online statistics

Members online
205
Guests online
4,449
Total visitors
4,654
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,347
Messages
17,967,846
Members
228,753
Latest member
Cindy88
Back
Top