Vincent Tabak could have walked away from Joanna Yeates attack, court told

Starkly contrasting descriptions of the last 20 seconds of Joanna Yeates's life were given in court as the prosecution and defence made their final speeches at the trial of her neighbour Vincent Tabak. The prosecution characterised the attack on the 25-year-old landscape architect last December as protracted and deliberate, claiming Tabak could have walked away at any moment, but chose not to. Tabak's defence described the incident as a few seconds of madness in a "quick-moving, dynamic situation" and insisted the jury could not be sure he intended to kill Yeates. Yesterday Tabak, who denies murder but has admitted manslaughter, held his head in his hands as Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting, addressed the jury for the final time. Lickley argued that Tabak had intended to kill Yeates, or cause her really serious harm. The prosecutor said Tabak was in control of his actions when he attacked Yeates at her flat in Bristol. Tabak, 33, could have released his grip on the throat of his neighbour and left, the prosecutor argued. But he decided not to, Lickley told the six men and six women on the jury. Yeates fought back but he carried on, it was claimed. Lickley said there could be no doubt about Tabak's intention. He had held Yeates by the throat long enough to "squeeze the life out of her". Tabak's case is that he put one hand on Yeates's throat and the other on her mouth when she screamed after he made a romantic pass at her. He has denied that Yeates struggled and said he cannot recall how she came by many of her injuries to her neck, face, ribs and back. She fell lifeless to the floor of the kitchen after around 20 seconds. "It's a long time when you have your hand around the throat of another person," said Lickley. "And you squeeze and squeeze and squeeze. Every second is a continued determination to kill." It was not an "instantaneous" attack like a thrust with a knife, he said. Lickley claimed that Tabak had said more than 80 times in the witness box that he could not remember parts of the incident on 17 December last year. But Lickley put to the jury that Tabak was a cunning and shrewd man who had carefully constructed a case to try to avoid being convicted of murder. Lickley made it clear that the prosecution alleges there is a sexual element to the case. "It is a killing linked to sex," he said. He flagged up the finding of her earrings in the bedroom. "Something happened in the bedroom," he told the jurors. Tabak's barrister, William Clegg QC, began his speech by telling the jury members he was not going to ask them to like Tabak. "There's nothing to like," he said. Nor did he ask them to have any sympathy for the Dutch engineer. "He deserves none," Clegg said. He added that there would be no excuses for Tabak's "disgusting" behaviour in hiding Yeates's body as he tried to get away with the crime. Clegg said he realised Tabak would lose a popularity contest, but he told the jury they had to return a verdict that reflected the evidence. Tabak's barrister went on to challenge the idea that the attack was premeditated. He said evidence that Yeates invited Tabak into the flat caused the prosecution "a great deal of trouble" and "destroyed" the notion the attack was planned. He added that Tabak could not have known Yeates was alone until he was asked in. Watched by members of Yeates's family, Clegg asked the jury to reject the theory that it was a sex attack. He reminded the panel that a pathologist, Nat Cary, had described this as speculation. Clegg told the jury that Yeates had died of cardiac arrest caused by obstruction to her airways. This was, he argued, a "very short, fast-moving incident". He also described it as a flash, a few seconds of madness. Clegg suggested his client's inability to remember exactly what happened was the result of trauma. Twice Clegg reminded the jurors of their oath to try Tabak on the evidence put before them. He concluded by telling them that they had much to reflect on, asking: "Has the prosecution proved to you that he had the intention the law demands before a man can be convicted of murder?" The judge, Mr Justice Field, will begin summing up the case at Bristol crown court this morning.