Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by otto, Oct 23, 2011.
New thread for Joanna Yeates
Monday, October 24, 2011
That's a big one for me too. If he was attempting to kiss her in response to perceived flirting, shouldn't he be stunned and concerned when she simply went limp?
I don't see deceit as indicative of murder or manslaughter. Everyone would lie about murder being manslaughter, thus muddying the facts for real manslauhter cases. This wasn't a traffic accident, it was not anything that could not be predicted. Manslaughter is unpredicted, what happened to Joanna could have been predicted. I think the number for injuries, amount of bleeding and the calculated manipulations after the murder are problematic for VT. The fact that he should have been aware of that fact that cutting off an airsupply will result in death or injury should be enough to convict. His sister, the doctor, probably knew this as a child, so why wouldn't VT.
Interesting. I'm sure there is much more to it. It's quite possible she said something to him one day that he didn't like or even possible that she said something that evening that put him into a rage. Some men tip from normal to rage in seconds (Joran v.d. Sloot).
Keep us updated! If you get a chance, can you get a photo of the path along the back of the house between VT's flat entrance and the path in front of Joanna's flat. I'm curious about his claims about dropping her, it being slippery and needing rocksalt. I'm also curious whether Joanna would have stepped outside on the path in thick socks. A photo of the distance from VT's flat entrance to the parking pad in back would also give a sense of the time it took to carry Joanna from her flat, possibly to his flat, and to his car.
On Longwood Lane, I'm curious about a photo closer to the wall or fence and what was on the other side.
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.
for FiestyFairy re radiator in hall
I think he must have known that she was on her own probably from the LL. I believe she was stalked the minute she came out of Waitrose and there must be CCTV coverage to show this. When she arrived home she had time to take off her shoes and coat with him still lurking outside and peeping in the window. At that point I think he took his opportunity either, he had a key or he knocked on the door, then he pounced on her . Can't understand why the possibility of him stalking and the fact that it maybe him on CCTV coverage in the store was not brought up in court. More to this then will ever be allowed to know I suspect. The whole thing stinks to me .
I think this is more about getting off on asphyia , like the prosection intimated.
So would I like to know the answers to those questions.
... knickers were in the hallway. Either Joanna normally left her knickers on the pedestal in the hallway, or Mr VT skarfed her knickers and left them in the hallway. The latter suggests murder, the former suggests VT wandered into a strange situation.
Any contact Joanna had with the suspect prior to the murder is relevant. If police analyzed the footage and VT was at the grocery store and following her home, that would most definitely go to premeditation. If there has not been any video footage connection, at the shops or during her walk home, between Joanna and the suspect, then it's most likely that there was none.
Er - aren't we supposed to call it "killing" at this point in time
afraid i am not so optomistic as you what you have just said makes me think even more that the whole case is bodering on farce.
I did have a twinge of "incorrect language" when I wrote "murder". Indeed, the asphixiation death could yet be ruled accidental.
The only speculation there has been about Joanna being stalked by VT at the grocery store is on the internet. Presumably, police have looked at the video and determined that it is not relevant. The tape was released because it shows Joanna's movements on her way home. As soon as the tape was released, people started speculating that other people at the grocery store were connected with and stalking the victim. Presumably police have explored and ruled out any connection. Making a connection between men that wander away from their shopping carts and Joanna works towards pre-meditation. VT was seen tossing candies into his mouth in the video after the murder. There is no connection between Joanna and VT prior to the murder at this time, other than perhaps a professional connection - as they were both in the field of architecture.
From James Beal
Back at #tabak again today. Defence winding down. Jury could go out mid-week.
Not so sure, that is the case, but there seems to be a lot of people on here who believe your theory?
Does anyone know - if he does get found guilty of murder but appeal - could the police/family/journos release information that had been held back so as not to 'prejudice' his case? or would they have to hold back until after his appeal?
Unsure - all evidence and information (on both sides) needs to be disclosed prior to being introduced to a court, and I am sure there is a lot of pre trial deliberation as to what will actually be put before a jury, what is admissable etc. On the other hand, new evidence can be grounds for an appeal if it can potentially indicate that an incorrect verdict was achieved in the absence of said evidence.
And during the trial itself! There have been several occasions when the jury has been sent out so that "legal arguments" can take place, so we can only guess at what evidence may have been ruled inadmissible - if any.
They are discussing points of law at the moment it seems
Court are discussing points of law at the moment
Separate names with a comma.