TRIAL OF VINCENT TABAK BEGINS 4/10/11

Panda wrote:

wjk wrote:

Panda wrote:Do you think maybe he and Jo ended up on the Bed and she backed off which is when he got violent.I seem to remember that Tabak"s DNA was on her trousers........or have I got it wrong.LOL

Hi Panda, I remember his DNA on her breasts and I think it was her trousers too?
Why would she have one sock on if it went like he said? Is he saying she poured him a drink and had a chat stood there with one sock? I don't think so! And her injuries are not injuries got with trying to kiss her and then holding her throat for less than 20 secs! Something more went on there!

Hi wjk, so we must assume that Jo was willing initially which maybe throws a different light on this. I seem to remember Tabak took one sock off ......to wipe off prints?

Hi Panda, no it is not safe to assume that Jo was willing initially. We're only hearing his side of the story as it's the only one left and he is a proven liar. I'm still waiting to hear about the earrings on the bed and the mess in the hallway, broken furniture, her injuries etc. Huge holes in his version of event.

chrissie wrote:

Panda wrote:

wjk wrote:

Panda wrote:Do you think maybe he and Jo ended up on the Bed and she backed off which is when he got violent.I seem to remember that Tabak"s DNA was on her trousers........or have I got it wrong.LOL

Hi Panda, I remember his DNA on her breasts and I think it was her trousers too?
Why would she have one sock on if it went like he said? Is he saying she poured him a drink and had a chat stood there with one sock? I don't think so! And her injuries are not injuries got with trying to kiss her and then holding her throat for less than 20 secs! Something more went on there!

Hi wjk, so we must assume that Jo was willing initially which maybe throws a different light on this. I seem to remember Tabak took one sock off ......to wipe off prints?

Hi Panda, no it is not safe to assume that Jo was willing initially. We're only hearing his side of the story as it's the only one left and he is a proven liar. I'm still waiting to hear about the earrings on the bed and the mess in the hallway, broken furniture, her injuries etc. Huge holes in his version of event.

Hi chrissie, that"s what I mean, how does he hope to claim he was only there for ten minutes before he tried it on in the Lounge with Jo?
If all the evidence is in the bedroom , including his DNA, Jo must have been willing. We know she bought a bottle of Cider, was all of this
drunk?

Panda wrote:

chrissie wrote:

Panda wrote:

wjk wrote:

Panda wrote:Do you think maybe he and Jo ended up on the Bed and she backed off which is when he got violent.I seem to remember that Tabak"s DNA was on her trousers........or have I got it wrong.LOL

Hi Panda, I remember his DNA on her breasts and I think it was her trousers too?
Why would she have one sock on if it went like he said? Is he saying she poured him a drink and had a chat stood there with one sock? I don't think so! And her injuries are not injuries got with trying to kiss her and then holding her throat for less than 20 secs! Something more went on there!

Hi wjk, so we must assume that Jo was willing initially which maybe throws a different light on this. I seem to remember Tabak took one sock off ......to wipe off prints?

Hi Panda, no it is not safe to assume that Jo was willing initially. We're only hearing his side of the story as it's the only one left and he is a proven liar. I'm still waiting to hear about the earrings on the bed and the mess in the hallway, broken furniture, her injuries etc. Huge holes in his version of event.

Hi chrissie, that"s what I mean, how does he hope to claim he was only there for ten minutes before he tried it on in the Lounge with Jo?
If all the evidence is in the bedroom , including his DNA, Jo must have been willing. We know she bought a bottle of Cider, was all of this
drunk?

He may have forced her into the bedroom, Panda. I think she may have opened the door to him, but from then on, I'm not so sure about his story! If, as he says, they were inside when she screamed, who was it that the neighbours heard? Did he push her at the front door, to get inside the flat? Is this when she screamed? He then pushed her into the bedroom, knocking over furniture in the hallway on the way through? IMO something more definitely happened than what he is admitting too.

I suspect Jo was trying to get out of her flat...she perhaps managed to put one sock on, and was trying to get her boots on (hence they were found strewn in the hallway) when Tabak grabbed her to stop her leaving ... the front door could even have been open.

Sorry, I"m not getting this at all. Here we have a well educated friendly guy with a live in girlfriend, who molests a neighbour after 10 minutes in her Company?

Had he too been drinking ? I think Jo invited him in and she too had been drinking, they ended up in her bed and that"s when she came to her
senses and he tried to shut her up.Jo screams and Tabak puts his hand on her throat and strangles her.

Panda wrote:Sorry, I"m not getting this at all. Here we have a well educated friendly guy with a live in girlfriend, who molests a neighbour after 10 minutes in her Company?

Had he too been drinking ? I think Jo invited him in and she too had been drinking, they ended up in her bed and that"s when she came to her
senses and he tried to shut her up.Jo screams and Tabak puts his hand on her throat and strangles her.

I`m not getting it either Panda.

Trouble is we will never know the truth of what happened that night. I just cannot believe VTs version of events.
I wonder who is the next witness for the defence.

Krisy22 wrote:

Panda wrote:Sorry, I"m not getting this at all. Here we have a well educated friendly guy with a live in girlfriend, who molests a neighbour after 10 minutes in her Company?

Had he too been drinking ? I think Jo invited him in and she too had been drinking, they ended up in her bed and that"s when she came to her
senses and he tried to shut her up.Jo screams and Tabak puts his hand on her throat and strangles her.

I`m not getting it either Panda.

Trouble is we will never know the truth of what happened that night. I just cannot believe VTs version of events.
I wonder who is the next witness for the defence.

Hi Krisy 22 , Actually Tabak has not done himself any favours , he could have said Jo invited him in, led him on and then realised what she was doing , screamed etc. If true that there was his DNA on her trousers it suggests they started to get intimate , much better defence than he was there for 10 minutes and tried to kiss her. Glad we think alike Krisy22, I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw
anything odd .

VT seems to have been terrified of his g/f knowing what he did. I'm wondering if he killed Jo because he was scared she'd tell his g/f something he didn't want coming out.

I can't stop thinking about Jo saying she was 'dreading' the weekend. It just seems like such a dramatic thing to say.

Wintabells wrote:VT seems to have been terrified of his g/f knowing what he did. I'm wondering if he killed Jo because he was scared she'd tell his g/f something he didn't want coming out.

I can't stop thinking about Jo saying she was 'dreading' the weekend. It just seems like such a dramatic thing to say.

Hi Wintabells, We know nothing about Jo except that she was a pretty, talented young Woman. Did Greg go away for a few days because
they were"nt getting along? If she felt lonely, why phone 3 men friends and not her boyfriend.? her boyfrined reported her missing on his return
from sheffield , were there no messages from him on her mobile? It"s not adding up for me at all.

I'm pretty sure I read there were messages from Greg on Jo's mobile, or one anyway.

It's a bit strange that he wasn't disturbed by her lack of call to check he arrived safely at his relatives' house, given the car was playing up before he left and it was icy etc. but perhaps he didn't expect her to ring and check. Given he couldn't get in touch with Jo all weekend, one would think alarm bells would have gone off for him even before he got back, but I guess we don't know how they operated as a couple.

Wintabells wrote:I'm pretty sure I read there were messages from Greg on Jo's mobile, or one anyway.

It's a bit strange that he wasn't disturbed by her lack of call to check he arrived safely at his relatives' house, given the car was playing up before he left and it was icy etc. but perhaps he didn't expect her to ring and check. Given he couldn't get in touch with Jo all weekend, one would think alarm bells would have gone off for him even before he got back, but I guess we don't know how they operated as a couple.

Exactly, he only reported her missing when he returned to the Flat, in fact I thought initially he was the culprit.!!!

Panda wrote:

Wintabells wrote:VT seems to have been terrified of his g/f knowing what he did. I'm wondering if he killed Jo because he was scared she'd tell his g/f something he didn't want coming out.

I can't stop thinking about Jo saying she was 'dreading' the weekend. It just seems like such a dramatic thing to say.

Hi Wintabells, We know nothing about Jo except that she was a pretty, talented young Woman. Did Greg go away for a few days because
they were"nt getting along? If she felt lonely, why phone 3 men friends and not her boyfriend.? her boyfrined reported her missing on his return
from sheffield , were there no messages from him on her mobile? It"s not adding up for me at all.

Yeah good point. I wonder if she was in a huff bacause he was going away and maybe didn't invite her? Maybe when she saw Tabak, she may of thought, I'll show you! And invited him in then changed her mind? Its strange he (Greg) never tried to speak to her while away and didn't really rush to report her missing. He says at one point, he was annoyed at the state of the flat and only when he saw her rucksack did he think OMG.
BUT I still don't think Tabaks story makes sense. When she screamed, why not just grab your coat and go?

wjk wrote:

Panda wrote:

Wintabells wrote:VT seems to have been terrified of his g/f knowing what he did. I'm wondering if he killed Jo because he was scared she'd tell his g/f something he didn't want coming out.

I can't stop thinking about Jo saying she was 'dreading' the weekend. It just seems like such a dramatic thing to say.

Hi Wintabells, We know nothing about Jo except that she was a pretty, talented young Woman. Did Greg go away for a few days because
they were"nt getting along? If she felt lonely, why phone 3 men friends and not her boyfriend.? her boyfrined reported her missing on his return
from sheffield , were there no messages from him on her mobile? It"s not adding up for me at all.

Yeah good point. I wonder if she was in a huff bacause he was going away and maybe didn't invite her? Maybe when she saw Tabak, she may of thought, I'll show you! And invited him in then changed her mind? Its strange he (Greg) never tried to speak to her while away and didn't really rush to report her missing. He says at one point, he was annoyed at the state of the flat and only when he saw her rucksack did he think OMG.
BUT I still don't think Tabaks story makes sense. When she screamed, why not just grab your coat and go?

Morning wjk, Tabak has done himself no favours by suggesting he was only there ten minutes and tried to kiss Jo. Had he said, she invited
him in and flirted with him they ended up in her Bedroom on the bed when she suddenly told him to stop. He was aroused so much by this
time that he ignored her, she screamed and he caught hold of her throat to silence her. If I was his Defence Attorney that is what I would
have recommended. The Judge has already said the disposal of the body should not be taken into account, it is whether the intent to
Murder Jo, rather than accidental homicide should be considered.

He's denying any struggle with her at the minute.
Pros is asking how she injured her ribs and back? He says I don't remember all the time.
Hes defo lying about the struggle. She had too many injuries not to have been in a major struggle. Why would he lie about this? IMO, because it points to murder.

How can trying to kiss her, not be sexual? Is he saying if she reciprocated, he wouldn't have had sex with her?
Nat Carey done a good job for the defence!

I feel VT doesn't want to reveal too many details about what his intentions were regarding Jo, because it would destroy his g/f?
Perhaps this is why he's being so coy about only wanting to kiss Jo and not wanting to take things any further....

I have to say, that his comment about Jo saying something along the lines of sometimes wanting to go to the wrong places like her cat, rings true.

I don't think his defence lawyer is doing a great job of trying to demonstrate it was manslaughter, if the story is that VT moved in for a kiss, then when Jo screamed he accidentally choked her so hard she died within 20 seconds. Surely it would have been more believable if he'd painted VT as a bit of a loner loon - found his g/f on a dating website, didn't have much of a social life, was under stress at work, had a history of feeling alienated and depressed etc and when Jo rejected him and screamed he was so terrified she'd expose his actions to his g/f, his family and his work, he had a psychotic episode and can't remember any of the details until the moment he realised she was dead.

Not that I want him to get a manslaughter sentence, but just saying....

Wintabells wrote:I feel VT doesn't want to reveal too many details about what his intentions were regarding Jo, because it would destroy his g/f?
Perhaps this is why he's being so coy about only wanting to kiss Jo and not wanting to take things any further....

I have to say, that his comment about Jo saying something along the lines of sometimes wanting to go to the wrong places like her cat, rings true.

I don't think his defence lawyer is doing a great job of trying to demonstrate it was manslaughter, if the story is that VT moved in for a kiss, then when Jo screamed he accidentally choked her so hard she died within 20 seconds. Surely it would have been more believable if he'd painted VT as a bit of a loner loon - found his g/f on a dating website, didn't have much of a social life, was under stress at work, had a history of feeling alienated and depressed etc and when Jo rejected him and screamed he was so terrified she'd expose his actions to his g/f, his family and his work, he had a psychotic episode and can't remember any of the details until the moment he realised she was dead.

Not that I want him to get a manslaughter sentence, but just saying....

I think it is very unsatifactory the way both Tabak and his Lawyer have acted. How is Tabak going to explain his DNA on Jo etc when the
Prosecutor questions him.

Hi Panda

I guess he'll say it must have happened when he was trying to put her body into the bag. Or that he simply doesn't know.

Seems to me he doesn't care that his defence looks like crap as long as he doesn't have to tell the whole wretched truth.

Yes, I think Tabak has realised that he is in for a long prison sentence and life as he knew it is over. Probably doesn"t care what happens to him now.

Defence have finished.
Closing speeches tomorrow.

wjk wrote:Defence have finished.
Closing speeches tomorrow.

Hi wjk, well, I don"t think Tabak"s Lawyer did much to prove manslaughter so I wouldn"t be surprised if the Murder charge is accepted.

I'm surprised its over so quickly. Got used to Casey Anthony trial & Conrad Murray trial going on for weeks and weeks.
Be interesting to see now what the jury made of Tabak when he was in the witness box and how he came across. I know they're only supposed to look at facts but I think personality comes into it too, unconsciously. We should get a verdict next week, I would have thought.

• 
  News
  
• 
  UK news
  
• 
  Joanna Yeates
  

Joanna Yeates's neighbour 'heard nothing unusual' on night she died



Vincent Tabak's defence case ends with a statement from a neighbour at the building where he and Yeates lived in Bristol

• 
  
  
  
  
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
    
    
    
    reddit this
    
    
  
  

• 
  
  Steven Morris
  
• 
  guardian.co.uk,
  
  Monday 24 October 2011 14.16 BST
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  Article history
  
  
  




Joanna Yeates, who was killed by Vincent
Tabak on 17 December. He denies murder but admits manslaughter.
Photograph: Avon and Somerset police/PA





The defence case in the trial of Vincent Tabak has closed with a
neighbour telling the jury that he did not hear anything unusual on the
night of Joanna Yeates's death.
Other witnesses have reported hearing screams at around the time Yeates was killed at her flat in Bristol but the retired teacher Geoffrey Hardyman, who lives in the same building, said he heard nothing.
After
his statement was read to the jury, William Clegg QC, for Tabak, said
the defence case was concluded. The jury was told it would hear closing
speeches from the prosecution and defence on Tuesday.
Tabak, a
33-year-old Dutch engineer, denies murdering his next-door neighbour, a
25-year-old landscape architect. He has admitted manslaughter.
The
defendant has claimed Yeates invited him into her flat in Clifton. He
says she made a "flirtatious" remark to him and he attempted to kiss
her.
Tabak claims she screamed and he put one hand around Yeates's throat and the other over her mouth to try to stop her.
After
killing Yeates, Tabak has admitted he put her body into the boot of his
car, went shopping at Asda and then dumped her corpse on a roadside
verge.
Following the killing on 17 December last year, Tabak
pretended to carry on with life as normal before being arrested by
police on 20 January. Yeates's body was found covered in snow on
Christmas morning.
The prosecution alleges Tabak intended to kill Yeates or cause her serious harm.
The trial continues.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/twitter/list/JoYeatesTrial?page=5

Steven Morris' tweets from court. Very interesting.

The prosecution suggests that Jo was killed at around 8.50pm, not at 9.30pm as Tabak claims. Screams were heard before 9pm, but the defence want the jury to dismiss them as 'red herrings'.

The fact that Tabak kept his hand around Jo's throat for around 15-20 seconds (or so he claims) does suggest (to me) he wanted her to die, even if he didn't go into her flat with the intention of killing her. I wonder if the jury will agree.