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

Good essay Q & A article below which is worth a read for scenarios to do with intoxication

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...3U6jZV&sig=AHIEtbTShoXTGXQVh_KD13Ukngcz7VWHMQ

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.

goldielox said:

Good essay Q & A article below which is worth a read for scenarios to do with intoxication

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...3U6jZV&sig=AHIEtbTShoXTGXQVh_KD13Ukngcz7VWHMQ

Click to expand...

Presumably an essay written for some kind of sixth form law exam? The author ain't gonna get an A.

"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.

goldielox said:

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?

Click to expand...

Shocking or upsetting events can very quickly have a sobering effect.

Cherwell said:

Shocking or upsetting events can very quickly have a sobering effect.

Click to expand...

I am no expert but if you were that stoned by drugs or drink enough to kill someone I would have thougth you would then be flat on the floor not able to move, or still stoned , not cleaning the flat which was found extra tidy. Unless he had help ? All this time the inquisitive CJ saw nothing.
Good point Goldieloxs

He can say what he likes, only poor Jo knows the truth, and he knows that.

Suspicious Minds said:

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.

Click to expand...

First up - kINGFISHER - thanks for your replies!

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!

Best

Polk

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.

Polk

aneurin said:

Presumably an essay written for some kind of sixth form law exam? The author ain't gonna get an A.

"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.

Click to expand...

Here's my :twocents:

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.

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...

In a way, yes, Cherwell. Pre-med can happen in the blinking of an eye. That he set out that night to kill Jo, I highly doubt. However, when she happened upon whatever it was he was doing by complete surprise - his premeditation activated and he believed he had to get rid of Jo - self preservation.

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

Suspicious Minds said:

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.

Click to expand...

Indeed, SS.

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.

notsure said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hi notsure!

Nice to interact again ... I happen to agree with you on the pizza (tho allow me to remind all this is my theory, not fact...) that he saw it after the deed ... and took it because, bluntly, he sure knew no-one else was going to eat it; GR away weekend ... why let a good thing go to waste. I think it's a heinous act. It beggars belief that he thought more of a pizza than he did of JY!

Nosure ... I don't buy a drunken accident. CJ saw him on his bike as he rode home from work around 7pm they chatted for a few mins, CJ explains GR car story. VT is a very big, strong, very fit man: we know that. If he did have a couple drinks (I doubt) he'd have held it better than most. Jo got home around 8.45 - 9pm. In say 1 half hours he ends up insanely drunk? Nope, not to me. Emphasis "to me". Finally, he grabbed the pizza but not an unopened bottle of cider? He wasn't after booze that night. He was after something else ... IMO

notsure said:

I think his explanation for what happened to the pizza is going to be crucial, as you say Polk.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. Don't forget that LE didn't even start searching for the pizza until after the bins had been emptied. It's quite possible that the pizza, whether eaten or not, had been thrown away and ended-up in a landfill site before anyone starting looking for it.

The fact that VT's flat is now on the market almost certainly means that no connecting door or spy hole was involved, otherwise the prosecution would want the jury to see it.

What is of much more interest is the front door to JY's flat. If I remember correctly, it was removed for forensic analysis by LE, and I guess the reason was to attempt to see if a key had been used or whether the lock had been picked. My guess is that VT had a key, and was waiting in the flat when JY returned.

PolkSaladAnnie said:

All we know is neither the pizza nor the packaging was ever found and there was a manhunt out for it.

Click to expand...

:floorlaugh: at the thought of a manhunt for a pizza ...

Cherwell said:

:floorlaugh: at the thought of a manhunt for a pizza ...

Click to expand...

I'm imagining an identity parade for the prime suspects. :giggle:

PolkSaladAnnie said:

In a way, yes, Cherwell. Pre-med can happen in the blinking of an eye. That he set out that night to kill Jo, I highly doubt. However, when she happened upon whatever it was he was doing by complete surprise - his premeditation activated and he believed he had to get rid of Jo - self preservation.

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

Click to expand...

I think that the concept of premediated murder is largely a US thing. And even then the use of the word 'premediated' doesn't neccessarily mean that there must have been a cunning plan of some kind.

As far as England and Wales is concerned; a murder is commited when someone of sound mind, unlawfully kills, any reasonable creature, in being, under the Queen's Peace, with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. And as far as the distinction between murder and manslaughter is concerned, it is the question of intent that really matters, and intent can be formed in a matter of seconds. (Or the blinking of an eye.) So where a defendant denies murder but admits manslaughter, the court will be looking at what evidence exists as to the state of mind of the defendant, during those few seconds if necessary.

It's not yet known exactly what route VT's defence are going to take as far as the manslaughter claim is concerned. It could be any number of things. For one thing, we have no idea as to VT's mental health history. Or indeed much information at all about his personal life, other than the bare facts of his academic/work record.

Cherwell said:

:floorlaugh: at the thought of a manhunt for a pizza ...

Click to expand...

Cherwelll.... I am unusually ..... everything .... but off my chair rocking with immense laughter at your 9 words above!!!!

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

But .... that's exactly what happened! A&S police launched a universally enormous HUNT for the flippin pizza and/or its packaging. There were canines. Kid you not. If you're UK based, you know this. Were those dogs also seeking pizza? Lord alone knows. But ONE thing is for sure ... your post has me so splitting my sides, I cannot stand up; as much against the grain I respectfully recognise the gravity of the situation. Shooo! I feel as though I got a burst of the giggles inside a church congregation, or something. Can't suppress it ... this post .... took me tooooo long to type!

That pesky pizza has become a mega star in this case!

GO away with your hilarious responses .... can't handle this.

<<<<wipes tears from eyes >>>>

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

notsure said:

I'm imagining an identity parade for the prime suspects. :giggle:

Click to expand...

OH nooooo ..... You're killing me! STOP it now :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

The search for Osama was as nothing compared to that for the pizza.

aneurin said:

I think that the concept of premediated murder is largely a US thing. And even then the use of the word 'premediated' doesn't neccessarily mean that there must have been a cunning plan of some kind.

As far as England and Wales is concerned; a murder is commited when someone of sound mind, unlawfully kills, any reasonable creature, in being, under the Queen's Peace, with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. And as far as the distinction between murder and manslaughter is concerned, it is the question of intent that really matters, and intent can be formed in a matter of seconds. (Or the blinking of an eye.) So where a defendant denies murder but admits manslaughter, the court will be looking at what evidence exists as to the state of mind of the defendant, during those few seconds if necessary.

It's not yet known exactly what route VT's defence are going to take as far as the manslaughter claim is concerned. It could be any number of things. For one thing, we have no idea as to VT's mental health history. Or indeed much information at all about his personal life, other than the bare facts of his academic/work record.

Click to expand...

I am so sorry, soooo sorry. There is no way I might gain a Tee heeee ... modicum of respect right now .... tee heee ... because hahahaha ... cherwell and bwahahahahaaaaaaa ... oh lord, cherwell and bwitzpwahahaha .... have me in stitches. I am so ashamed ... but not since the day I joined WS (originally 2002) to date .... have I ..... teeeeeheeeee .... giggled uncontrollably.

FINISHED ...

Oh MY ..... WORD! I'll gather my wits (bwahahahaaaaa) and .... respond!

Manhunt for a pizzzzzzzzza. Bwahhhhhhh

So he arrives home on his bike at 7 pm, is told by LL that GR has gone away for the weekend. This triggers something in VT's mind. He sees that there are no lights on next-door, so nobody home. What are his thoughts? Has he been waiting for an opportunity to do something while the flat is empty, or does he get the idea to go round when he hears JY arrive home? I'm now thinking that he wouldn't have the courage to go round and ring the doorbell. The other option is risky though. Could he be sure enough that he wouldn't be disturbed?