What we know for sure is that VT knew Joanna was alone before he murdered her. We know that the landlord knew that GR would be away for the weekend and that VT spoke with the landlord prior to having contact with Joanna. I think it's possible that the landlord mentioned helping with GR's car, or that VT knew GR would be away because he could hear through the walls. There is the distinct possibility that VT knew Joanna would be alone and that he deliberately did not attend the party with his girlfriend because he had other plans.
But ... we don't know for sure without testimony from the landlord.
I know all this otto, but it would be much easier on the jury if they knew the answer to this very important question. As far as we know, the jury does not know the answer to this.
It would be wrong if the jury just assumed that CJ told VT that GR was away from home that night.
Chit chat from the neighbours reported in the press, should not be used as evidence for anything in a court of law.:banghead:
CJ could be a witness to this. Maybe he couldn't remember so there was no point calling him to testify.
I did not know that VT could have went to party with TM. I just thought that spouses and partners would not be going as it was a party for Dyson employees.
Any works Christmas parties I have attended over the years, were for employees only.
I am aware that some parties do have partners and spouses, but not many.
skynewsgatherer Harriet Tolputt
Delay to start of #VincentTabak trial.
Harriet Tolputt
Jury trying Vincent Tabak for the murder of Joanna Yeates have been stood down until 1230.
These must be lengthy points of law being discussed.
It would be somewhat ironic if the prosecution had heard (via Websleuths) that VT appears in the Waitrose CCTV, and that they now want to introduce this as evidence! :banghead:
Harriet Tolputt
Jury trying Vincent Tabak for the murder of Joanna Yeates have been stood down until 1230.
These must be lengthy points of law being discussed.
It would be somewhat ironic if the prosecution had heard (via Websleuths) that VT appears in the Waitrose CCTV, and that they now want to introduce this as evidence! :banghead:
....
These must be lengthy points of law being discussed.
...
More like a ten car pile-up! If WC has underlings who pay attention to what is posted on all the websites and chat groups dedicated to this case, they must be very worried, but I am not sure how they can turn their case around at this late date and mitigate the fallout from VT's testimony.At this stage of the trial and given that the defence has been something of a car crash so far, I'd guess that the defence are trying to get a new witness on the stand, or present some kind of evidence that wasn't outlined at the PACM hearing, and the prosecution is objecting.
Case for the defence has concluded
Bill Clegg says 'my lord that concludes the case for the defence'. Jury being sent home for the day and asked to come back 1030 tomorrow
That's a bit odd. It sounds to me like the prosecution were expecting considerably more than the reading out of a single statement, and aren't ready to start their summing up until tomorrow.
That was over in 5 minutes ! Makes me wonder if there was more evidence planned and due to point of law defence not allowed to disclose ?