subscribe: Posts | Comments

Man accused of Joanna Yeates’ death “misread the situation”

5 comments

Summary of story from this is Gloucestershire, October 19, 2011

Accused of causing the death of Joanna Yeates at her UK flat (see WVoN story), the defence case for Vincent Tabak began yesterday with the assertion that he had “completely misread the situation”.

According to William Clegg QC, Yeates had been “bored and lonely” on the night she invited Tabak into her flat.  They had chatted but then he misread the situation and moved as if to kiss her.

When she screamed, he put a hand over her mouth to quieten her.  He took his hand away, but she continued to scream and he panicked.  He put one hand on her throat and the other back over her mouth.

She died shortly afterwards.

“He never intended to kill her.  Nothing had been planned, nothing was premeditated.”

Tabak is due to take the stand October 20.

  1. I appreciate this is a reporting of the evidence, but my reaction to that barrister’s remarks would be a hearty ‘So?’ Is this his idea of mitigation? His client mistook friendship as flirting and then move to (literally) silence Yeates when she said no? I seriously hope he is found guilty of murder and not of a lesser charge because of this claim that it was not premeditated.

  2. So the price of a woman saying no is death?

    • The price of speaking up for herself. Shameful.

      • I’m glad you’re suspicious of the defence coming out of this trial too. I was disturbed when I saw that Tabak was using what I instantly recognised as the classic rapist’s defence – ‘misreading’ the situation – but this time, being used as a justification for murder. As in rape trials, it seems as if he’s trying to use the ‘fickle woman’, ‘naive man’ stereotypes to his advantage. However, I don’t think it will work because of the public perception of Joanna Yeates (not that I’m happy with the way she was obsessed over by the media, but in securing a conviction her portrayal as the ‘perfect victim’ will be a benefit).

        • Yes, good point. Although it’s another replaying of the same old stereotype. I genuinely do hope it helps in this case but we need to move away from questions of whether someone ‘deserved’ to have a crime perpetrated against them.

          You’ve got me wondering now. Where else is this ‘naive man’ thing used except trials for violence against women? I can’t think of any examples off the top of my head and it seems to me this is one of the only times the patriarchy allows – encourages – admissions of weakness. Odd.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *