TRIAL OF VINCENT TABAK BEGINS 4/10/11

Thanks wintabells, even Tabak"s Lawyer doesn"t know what to make of it.!!! Apparently, after killing Jo, he went to his Flat for 30 minutes to compose himself then put Jo"s body in the Car and drove to Asda to give himself an alibi.......for me that makes his claim of manslaughter
hardly likely to be accepted by the Jury.

And don't forget he put her in his flat before putting her in the car!
Imo, 20 secs is more than long enough to come to your senses. He meant to kill her.
But by sticking to his story will he have put enough doubt into the juries mind, as to whether he meant it or not?
We'll find out soon.
I wonder how long they'll be out? Some people think if the jury come back quickly, its a guilty verdict! But that theory went tits up with the Anthony verdict!

wjk wrote:And don't forget he put her in his flat before putting her in the car!
Imo, 20 secs is more than long enough to come to your senses. He meant to kill her.
But by sticking to his story will he have put enough doubt into the juries mind, as to whether he meant it or not?
We'll find out soon.
I wonder how long they'll be out? Some people think if the jury come back quickly, its a guilty verdict! But that theory went tits up with the Anthony verdict!

Hi wjk,

Why would an educated guy with a girlfriend, good job etc lose his cool so quickly, Jo"s Parents said when Tabak was arrested that Jo had never mentioned him . Maybe he too had been drinking and when he tried it on with Jo, who also had been drinking and was lonely,she was originally compliant and he turned nasty when she tried to stop him. When you are incarcerated for months you would go over every minute of that night in your head, over and over.

Panda wrote:Thanks wintabells, even Tabak"s Lawyer doesn"t know what to make of it.!!! Apparently, after killing Jo, he went to his Flat for 30 minutes to compose himself then put Jo"s body in the Car and drove to Asda to give himself an alibi.......for me that makes his claim of manslaughter
hardly likely to be accepted by the Jury.

True... but his lawyer is asking the jury to ignore everything that happened after Jo died and focus only on the events before and during. The fact that he went off for 30 mins to compose himself etc. isn't relevant (as far as the jury are concerned) to whether or not it was murder/manslaughter. But I agree that if his intention was not to murder Jo, he would have called an ambulance the moment he realised he had. Mind you, there may be murderers who planned to kill, then regretted it and called an ambulance. Does that make them manslaughterers? It's very difficult and I'm glad I'm not a jury member.

I think his explanation for killing Jo is what will be his undoing. Strangling someone to stop them from screaming makes no sense - it's just not a natural response, surely? Screaming isn't a natural response to an unweclome kiss, either. I reckon he knows the scream(s) were overheard and is trying to cover for them with this 'kiss' business... followed by the nonsense about putting his (one) hand around Jo's throat. The jury will surely recognise that he's lying and therefore his version of events cannot be trusted. But does that mean they'll find him guilty as charged? I have no idea how it works.

Wintabells wrote:I think his explanation for killing Jo is what will be his undoing. Strangling someone to stop them from screaming makes no sense - it's just not a natural response, surely? Screaming isn't a natural response to an unweclome kiss, either. I reckon he knows the scream(s) were overheard and is trying to cover for them with this 'kiss' business... followed by the nonsense about putting his (one) hand around Jo's throat. The jury will surely recognise that he's lying and therefore his version of events cannot be trusted. But does that mean they'll find him guilty as charged? I have no idea how it works.

Hi Wintabells, I think the definition of Murder is it is premeditated, Manslaughter is that it was more an accident. I can"t believe he went
into Jo"s Flat with the intention of killing her , so although hiding her body and all that was disgusting as his own Counsel said, we are to ignore that. anyway, he shall know tomorrow, his life is over anyway, whatever the verdict.

Panda wrote:

Wintabells wrote:I think his explanation for killing Jo is what will be his undoing. Strangling someone to stop them from screaming makes no sense - it's just not a natural response, surely? Screaming isn't a natural response to an unweclome kiss, either. I reckon he knows the scream(s) were overheard and is trying to cover for them with this 'kiss' business... followed by the nonsense about putting his (one) hand around Jo's throat. The jury will surely recognise that he's lying and therefore his version of events cannot be trusted. But does that mean they'll find him guilty as charged? I have no idea how it works.

Hi Wintabells, I think the definition of Murder is it is premeditated, Manslaughter is that it was more an accident. I can"t believe he went
into Jo"s Flat with the intention of killing her , so although hiding her body and all that was disgusting as his own Counsel said, we are to ignore that. anyway, he shall know tomorrow, his life is over anyway, whatever the verdict.

Hi Panda

Wiki says:

....The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:

i.Intent to kill,
ii.Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
iii.Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
iv.Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

It seems the prosecution are trying to demonstrate that VT acted with malice when he kept strangling Jo for 15 -20 seconds, where she clearly must have struggled etc. 'Reckless indifference...etc' looks like the one.

Wintabells wrote:

Panda wrote:

Wintabells wrote:I think his explanation for killing Jo is what will be his undoing. Strangling someone to stop them from screaming makes no sense - it's just not a natural response, surely? Screaming isn't a natural response to an unweclome kiss, either. I reckon he knows the scream(s) were overheard and is trying to cover for them with this 'kiss' business... followed by the nonsense about putting his (one) hand around Jo's throat. The jury will surely recognise that he's lying and therefore his version of events cannot be trusted. But does that mean they'll find him guilty as charged? I have no idea how it works.

Hi Wintabells, I think the definition of Murder is it is premeditated, Manslaughter is that it was more an accident. I can"t believe he went
into Jo"s Flat with the intention of killing her , so although hiding her body and all that was disgusting as his own Counsel said, we are to ignore that. anyway, he shall know tomorrow, his life is over anyway, whatever the verdict.

Hi Panda

Wiki says:

....The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:

i.Intent to kill,
ii.Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
iii.Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
iv.Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

It seems the prosecution are trying to demonstrate that VT acted with malice when he kept strangling Jo for 15 -20 seconds, where she clearly must have struggled etc. 'Reckless indifference...etc' looks like the one.

Yes Wintabells either 11 or 111 would apply because you don"t put your hand around someone"s throat unless it is to cause harm. Judging
by the evidence I would say he will be charged with Murder.

Seems to be a consistent theme with these psycho murderers who are perfectly able to get on with life as normal following their awful crimes.
Off they go shopping or jogging or just turning a few cart wheels as if nothing ever happened.And yet it remains oddly criminal that the masses cannot get to grips with the possibility that such people exist unless they happen to be from some deprived sink estate or perhaps just the wrong colour or ethnic group !!

Lioned wrote:Seems to be a consistent theme with these psycho murderers who are perfectly able to get on with life as normal following their awful crimes.
Off they go shopping or jogging or just turning a few cart wheels as if nothing ever happened.And yet it remains oddly criminal that the masses cannot get to grips with the possibility that such people exist unless they happen to be from some deprived sink estate or perhaps just the wrong colour or ethnic group !!

Couldn't agree more!

Claudia79 wrote:

Lioned wrote:Seems to be a consistent theme with these psycho murderers who are perfectly able to get on with life as normal following their awful crimes.
Off they go shopping or jogging or just turning a few cart wheels as if nothing ever happened.And yet it remains oddly criminal that the masses cannot get to grips with the possibility that such people exist unless they happen to be from some deprived sink estate or perhaps just the wrong colour or ethnic group !!

Couldn't agree more!

Yep, spot on!

Murder can be only a second of thought to kill someone. He didn't have to have gone in there thinking of killing her but those 20 secs are enough time to make it murder. He had enought time in that 20 secs to stop, but didn't. That imo, makes it murder.

Lioned wrote:Seems to be a consistent theme with these psycho murderers who are perfectly able to get on with life as normal following their awful crimes.
Off they go shopping or jogging or just turning a few cart wheels as if nothing ever happened.And yet it remains oddly criminal that the masses cannot get to grips with the possibility that such people exist unless they happen to be from some deprived sink estate or perhaps just the wrong colour or ethnic group !!

Completely agree. Some people appear to live normal lives and then kill someone and rather than tell the authorities, they cover their tracks. There have been so many examples of this over the past few years.... you'd think the masses would finally accept that although warning signs may well be present in some cases... no-one could have anticipated how seriously unhinged these people would turn out to be. Depression, stress, childhood trauma, overly controlling parent(s)...all these things can drive even the most 'normal' people into madness under certain conditions.

Latest Steven Morris tweets (most recent first)

Judge in Vincent Tabak trial sends jury home for the night. No verdict. Back at 10.30am tomorrow.
Judge asks jury to try to reach unanimous verdict. Sent out at 12.24pm by court clock.
Tabak judge summing up ending. Says if they are sure he intended to kill Yeates or cause really serious harm the verdict will be guilty
Tabak trial judge says pros claims VT "tailored" or "invented" his defence case.
Judge in Vincent Tabak case going through defence statements supplied ahead of trial
Vincent Tabak has rested his bowed head on his clasped hands for most of the judge's summing up. Rarely looks up.
But judge says the fact that Tabak lied may affect jury's judgement of him as a "truthful witness".
Judge says jury must not assume that because he lied afterwards Vincent Tabak is guilty of murder.
Judge reminds Tabak jury of online research VT did after killing Jo - manslaughter, body decomposition, definition sexual assault
Judge says Vincent Tabak accepts he "cynically deceived" girlfriend Tanja Morson after killing Jo Yeates. And told police "calculated lies"
Judge reminds Tabak jury that Jo's earrings found in her bedroom, hallway was untidy
Tabak jury back. Judge reminding panel of the evidence given by Jo Yeates' boyfriend, Greg Reardon, when he returned to their flat.
Judge reminds Tabak jury of expert evidence that Jo Yeates did not eat pizza she bought that evening. Break now.
Judge says it's up to jury to decide if screams heard that night before 9pm were Jo Yeates' cries.
Tabak judge talking about timing of attack. Pros says it was before 9pm, defence says it was after 9.25pm on Dec 17.
Tabak has said he held Yeates for about 20 seconds, judge reminds jury
Tabak judge tells jury an "important issue" is the duration of strangulation before death. Both pathologists expected Jo to have struggled.
Judge carefully going through the evidence about the injuries Jo Yeates suffered.
Judge tells jury that injuries were caused to both sides of Jo Yeates' head while she was alive
Tabak Judge suggests jury focuses on bruises - which must have been caused while Jo Yeates was alive
Tabak trial judge reminds Jo Yeates' body was found with 43 injuries. Does not mean 43 impacts - some are groups of injuries.
Judge in Vincent Tabak trial now summarising what pathologists and other experts told the jury
Jo Yeates' parents and boyfriend in front row of public gallery. Tabak has his head in his hands as he sits in the dock
Mr Justice Field is summarising what Vincent Tabak told jury over two days in witness box. Tabak denies murder, admits manslaughter
Judge says for Tabak to be guilty of murder, jury must be sure he intended to kill or cause really serious bodily injury
Judge setting out definitions of murder and manslaughter to Tabak jury. Manslaughter "serious", murder "much graver".
Judge says this is a tragic case - Jo Yeates "a lovely young woman has been robbed of her life"
Mr Justice Field tells jury to make allowances for stress Vincent Tabak was under in witness box, reminds them English not his 1st language
Judge tells jury not to let emotion "cloud" its judgement. They must consider evidence in a "calm, dispassionate and rational way."
Judge says Tabak "gained access" to Yeates' flat and killed her. Tabak "moved quickly to cover his tracks".
Jury now hearing judge summing up. Judge says Joanna Yeates was "home alone" on December 17. Vincent Tabak was in his flat next door.
Back at Bristol crown court for Vincent Tabak trial. Judge due to sum up this morning.

Really irritated that the defence are making out that if Jo invited VT into her flat, it couldn't have been murder, because it couldn't have been premeditated. Given that it doesn't have to have been premeditated for it to be murder, whether or not Jo invited him in, is irrelevant to whether or not what he did was murder as opposed to manslaughter.

Wintabells wrote:Really irritated that the defence are making out that if Jo invited VT into her flat, it couldn't have been murder, because it couldn't have been premeditated. Given that it doesn't have to have been premeditated for it to be murder, whether or not Jo invited him in, is irrelevant to whether or not what he did was murder as opposed to manslaughter.

totally agree with you, Wintabells. Who knows if she invited him in anyway. She may have gone to the door and he pushed his way in? He didn't have to set off that night with murder on his mind to make it murder. The time it took to strangle Jo and the strength it takes makes it murder imo. He had time to come to his senses but carried on until he killed her. He didn't strangle her to keep her quiet, like he's trying to make out.It takes too long and takes too much strength to strangle someone without meaning serious harm or death. Especially when the victim is putting up a massive fight, like Jo obviously was, according to both the pros and def.

This case has really shocked me

Due to his previous good character I thought the police had the wrong guy with Vincent Tabak.
So sad for Jo,family and boyfriend, also for the family and friends of Tabak.
Hope the jury come to a swift decision for all involved.

wjk wrote:

Wintabells wrote:Really irritated that the defence are making out that if Jo invited VT into her flat, it couldn't have been murder, because it couldn't have been premeditated. Given that it doesn't have to have been premeditated for it to be murder, whether or not Jo invited him in, is irrelevant to whether or not what he did was murder as opposed to manslaughter.

totally agree with you, Wintabells. Who knows if she invited him in anyway. She may have gone to the door and he pushed his way in? He didn't have to set off that night with murder on his mind to make it murder. The time it took to strangle Jo and the strength it takes makes it murder imo. He had time to come to his senses but carried on until he killed her. He didn't strangle her to keep her quiet, like he's trying to make out.It takes too long and takes too much strength to strangle someone without meaning serious harm or death. Especially when the victim is putting up a massive fight, like Jo obviously was, according to both the pros and def.

So true, yes - he could have rung her bell, asked for a favour, Jo would have been polite and let him in... who wouldn't? I hate the way he's trying to make it her fault... she beckoned to him through the window...she flirted...she screamed when, after all, it's 'nice' to kiss... He takes no responsibility for any of it - just says he can't remember or he doesn't know when asked awkward questions and almost suggests that had he not been left bored and home alone by his g/f, it wouldn't have happened. I also hate that he's apologised for causing Jo's family a 'week' of hell. A lifetime, more like.

Wintabells wrote:

wjk wrote:

Wintabells wrote:Really irritated that the defence are making out that if Jo invited VT into her flat, it couldn't have been murder, because it couldn't have been premeditated. Given that it doesn't have to have been premeditated for it to be murder, whether or not Jo invited him in, is irrelevant to whether or not what he did was murder as opposed to manslaughter.

totally agree with you, Wintabells. Who knows if she invited him in anyway. She may have gone to the door and he pushed his way in? He didn't have to set off that night with murder on his mind to make it murder. The time it took to strangle Jo and the strength it takes makes it murder imo. He had time to come to his senses but carried on until he killed her. He didn't strangle her to keep her quiet, like he's trying to make out.It takes too long and takes too much strength to strangle someone without meaning serious harm or death. Especially when the victim is putting up a massive fight, like Jo obviously was, according to both the pros and def.

So true, yes - he could have rung her bell, asked for a favour, Jo would have been polite and let him in... who wouldn't? I hate the way he's trying to make it her fault... she beckoned to him through the window...she flirted...she screamed when, after all, it's 'nice' to kiss... He takes no responsibility for any of it - just says he can't remember or he doesn't know when asked awkward questions and almost suggests that had he not been left bored and home alone by his g/f, it wouldn't have happened. I also hate that he's apologised for causing Jo's family a 'week' of hell. A lifetime, more like.

Great post Sums it up exactly
I'm wondering if after the jury come back, we'll be told of previous attacks? You get that sometimes, don't you? Where the press knew of previous but had to keep it quiet until after the trial? I'm only saying because it seems such a brutal thing to do for a first attack (manslaughter/murder)

Just what I was thinking WJK. I believe that, if a person is found guilty, any relevant previous convictions will definitely be revealed.

Blimey, I hadn't thought of that. And even if he hasn't been arrested/charged for anything in the past, they've now got his dna and can look over their cold cases. *shudder*

stevenmorris20 tweets (most recent first)

Still no word from the Vincent Tabak jury....He denies murdering Joanna Yeates
7 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
»
stevenmorris20 steven morris
Lunchtime at Vincent Tabak trial. No verdict.
1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply
»
stevenmorris20 steven morris
Judge sends Tabak jury off to resume its deliberations. Says he wants them to try to reach unanimous verdict. Tabak denies murder.
4 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply
»
stevenmorris20 steven morris
Vincent Tabak back in dock at Bristol crown ct. Head in hands as so often during trial.
4 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

» stevenmorris20 steven morris
Ever growing media pack outside Bristol crown court for Vincent Tabak trial...photographers, TV crews sheltering from rain under gazebos

http://www.mulrooneycraghill.com/what-happens-at-a-crown-court-trial-the-verdict/

very informative bit of info...for whilst we wait...

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Just what I was thinking WJK. I believe that, if a person is found guilty, any relevant previous convictions will definitely be revealed.

Hi N B Y


I guess we will soon know if he has gone too far with someone else in the past and got away with it.

stevenmorris20
Judge warns jury not to discuss Tabak case over night or to do any research on it. Back at 10.30am tomorrow, Friday.
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply »

stevenmorris20 steven morris
Jury back into court in Tabak trial. Judge is sending jury home for the night. No verdict.
4 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply »

stevenmorris20 steven morris
Vincent Tabak trial. Called back into court. Tabak in dock with head in hands.

Thank you Wintabells.

Looks like another day to wait then.