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

[FiestyFairy]

So that chaplain saw VT on 2nd, 5th and 8th- three brief times over the course of nine days...and managed to get a confession out of him. That's pretty good going. I wonder how many other inmates met with the chaplain as frequently over the course of nine days.

I'm not doubting his word...VT later admitted manslaughter himself in court, but since the defence seems to be disputing the chaplain's version of events it has to make me wonder.

I think the defense team are trying to show contrition. The original statement by the Chaplain says VT was depressed (possible remorse?). Where his trial testimony says VT felt "so so".

 

[FiestyFairy]

I've just looked up uses for Rock Salt - seems its really good in helping to remove blood stains from clothing!

 

[Colombo]

interesting all refs to the case removed from AS police website this morning

possible they are restructuring but all refs gone?

 

[Clio]

Especially as the defence is claiming that his defence team already knew he was going to plead guilty. Can't see what there is to make a fuss about.

This seems to be the best explanatary tweet of what's being disputed

From Martin Evans

Under cross-examination chaplain admits #VincentTabak did not say he was going to CHANGE his plea, only that he was going to plead guilty.

Guilty to killing her anyway, not necessarily guilty of meaning to I guess

 

[bax]

I've just looked up uses for Rock Salt - seems its really good in helping to remove blood stains from clothing!

Yeah..rocksalt+ cold water= good to remove blood or red wine stains.

 

[edgedweller]

Not really sure what the defence are hoping to gain by cross-examining the chaplain :-s

So what if he confessed and the chaplain told the senior chaplain? Woopee-doo. It wasn't a religious confession and his legal team knew anyway. What's the point? It's not making me feel sorry for him one jot. I hope the jury are not swayed by these irrelevancies.

I'm surprised that VT is going to take the stand - it's a big risk as under cross-examination the prosecution could rip him apart (as he seems very fragile - cannot look at what he's done, averts eyes from photos of Jo etc). I suppose they think it's worth it to get his side of the story out there, otherwise it will simply be a statement read out to the court, won't it (Which the prosecution cannot 'cross-examine' as such).

Surely TM will be a witness for one side or the other, won't she? Perhaps the defence will get her to take the stand to say that his demeanour/sleeping habits/personality changed after the death of Jo - to prove that he was devastated by what he'd done and therefore it wasn't murder. Oh, and surely you can still be remorseful if it WAS murder? You only have to mean it for those 20 or so seconds for it to be murder. I squeezed my own neck for about three seconds today and it hurt, the blood was pounding in my ears - 20 seconds is a looooooong time under those circumstances. Accident my arse.

(just my opinion!)

 

[Clio]

Not surprisingly, Clegg is trying to plant doubts about it being murder, VT's DNA getting transferred onto JY's body from the bag as he tried to dispose of the body after he'd 'accidentally' killed her, rather than from any more prolonged contact. Building up this idea he wants to establish that it was all a split second misunderstanding. DNA getting through her bra as VT disposed of the body though, is the jury likely to think that's what happened?

DNA didn't have to get through her bra according to this.

From Martin Brunt

#JoYeates's t-shirt and bra had been pushed up exposing part of her breast, jury are told

 

[stmarysmead]

I'm trying to see how the bra gets pushed up, exposing a breast, while he's trying to get the body over a wall. I can see the shirt, but that's too much for me. More likely, this was part of his "advance" One hand behind her back, one exposing her breast. Then she screams and he has to cover her mouth and...oops, kill her.

Can they tell if the DNA is from saliva?

 

[veggiefan]

I'm not doubting his word...VT later admitted manslaughter himself in court, but since the defence seems to be disputing the chaplain's version of events it has to make me wonder.

The chaplain is not coming out of this at all well. First he assures VT that anything said will be treated as confidential, and then goes on to break that confidence. Then he swears in court (no doubt on the bible) to tell the truth and claims that VT said he was going to change his plea, when the defence can show that there was no such change.

 

[Redgoblin]

I'm trying to see how the bra gets pushed up, exposing a breast, while he's trying to get the body over a wall. I can see the shirt, but that's too much for me. More likely, this was part of his "advance" One hand behind her back, one exposing her breast. Then she screams and he has to cover her mouth and...oops, kill her.

Can they tell if the DNA is from saliva?

I think the technique they use for low copy DNA is called SENSE (I believe?) and I don't think it detects a complete DNA sequence as these could have worn off the body under the circumstances, none were found anyway, although they would have tested for a complete DNA sequence using a classical approach first.. but for low level or partial DNA it was only found to trace sweat and saliva in this case.

 

[edgedweller]

The chaplain sounds a bit doddery to me But also, the chaplain is not in the dock - even if he's a liar and an idiot, it still makes no difference to the case! Was it murder or manslaughter? Just because VT confessed to a man that can't remember his original police statement, makes no difference, surely?

 

[veggiefan]

Can they tell if the DNA is from saliva?

No, was the answer in court (it could equally well come from sweat).

Also, the DNA analysis looks as though it was done through a type of low copy number technique, which has proved very controversial (and which was banned for a while because of doubts over its reliability).

 

[veggiefan]

The chaplain sounds a bit doddery to me But also, the chaplain is not in the dock - even if he's a liar and an idiot, it still makes no difference to the case! Was it murder or manslaughter? Just because VT confessed to a man that can't remember his original police statement, makes no difference, surely?

I guess it's all part of making the prosecution's case appear unreliable. If you can't trust the chaplain, who can you trust?

 

[aneurin]

....

Can they tell if the DNA is from saliva?

No, I believe that it was stated in court that they couldn't attribute the DNA traces found on JY's breast to a particular bodily fluid.

I think the technique they use for low copy DNA is called SENSE and I don't think it detects semen or blood (as a complete DNA sequence) as these could have worn off the body under the circumstances, none were found anyway, although they would have tested for a complete DNA sequence using a classical approach first.. but for low level or partial DNA it was only found to trace sweat and saliva in this case.

It's DNA SenCE which is the LGC low-template DNA profile technique (their equivalent of the FSS LCN method). It only produced a partial profile, but good enough for a one in a million match.

 

[badhorsie]

I was wondering if he could be pre-empting the discovery of some substance they might find in his bloodstream.

I reckon that that info might have come out already if true but possible, yes

 

[wfgodot]

The chaplain sounds a bit doddery to me But also, the chaplain is not in the dock - even if he's a liar and an idiot, it still makes no difference to the case! Was it murder or manslaughter? Just because VT confessed to a man that can't remember his original police statement, makes no difference, surely?

Agreed, and laughed out loud at the "liar and an idiot" bit. Exactly. Well, at least the latter. As for his shopping the confession - that "nonreligious confession" bit making it "allowable" is a non-starter with me - the chaplain showed the best Christian values, didn't he.

 

[Redgoblin]

No, I believe that it was stated in court that they couldn't attribute the DNA traces found on JY's breast to a particular bodily fluid.



It's DNA SenCE which is the LGC low-template DNA profile technique (their equivalent of the FSS LCN method). It only produced a partial profile, but good enough for a one in a million match.

Thanks Aneurin, I made a pigs ear of that. :saythat:

 

[edgedweller]

This trial is so BITTY - no timeline or chronology to hold on to... perhaps with a full transcript it might be obvious, but if even we who have been thinking about this case for months get confused, then the jury (who supposedly don't know much previously) must be totally befuddled...

hopefully the prosecution summing up will be effective.

 

[aneurin]

Thanks Aneurin, I made a pigs ear of that. :saythat:

Don't worry. It's just that I know more about DNA testing than is either sensible or reasonable for a non-professional to know.

 

[Clio]

As part of the admissions i.e. non-contested evidence comes this (missing the word "contact" I would guess in the haste of tweeting)

From Skynewsgatherer

Prosecution says the fibre evidence shows that Joanna Yeates came into direct with #Tabak's black coat and the boot of car he was driving.

Well she wasn't in a bag then was she!