Apologies---it's me again!!
Most people tell me that they know VT is guilty because he pleaded guilty, and admitted killing Jo, and that nobody would plead guilty if they were innocent. This seems to be the general consensus of people on this forum---and on other forums.
However, VT claimed that he killed her on the Friday night, and in her flat. There are doubts about him having killed her in either of their flats as there was no forensic evidence. It now seems that there are doubts that Jo died on the Friday night, as we cannot be sure what she was wearing. If she died shortly after arriving home, as VT said, she would have been wearing what she had been wearing in the Ram pub, minus her coat and boots!
So, if the details are not true, how can we know the guilty plea is true? If Jo died later than the Friday night, it is very unlikely that VT killed her. He had an alibi.
Sherlock Holmes famously remarked that the detective should eliminate the impossible, and concentrate on what is possible, no matter how improbable it may seen. Probability plays a large role in assessing how other people and institutions will react to our own behaviour. The defendant in this murder case was an extremely trustworthy person. Forgive me for spelling it out, but trusting other people, and developing our own trustworthyness, play essential, and indeed, motivational roles in society.
If the victim had declared that she intended to relocate to Arizona, taking the children with her so that he would never see them again, then the defendant might well have flown into an angry rage - though I suggest that this particular defendant was so gentle that he wouldn't have raised his hand against her.
However, this is a fantasy scenario, as they certainly had no children, and if they were in some prior secret romantic relationship, no hint of this was given at the trial. So the probability that this particular defendant would have acted in the way the court wants us to believe he did is obviously ZERO.
It is perfectly true that some people cannot take rejection - "hell hath no fury!" - but this applies only to rejection by a partner with whom one has had a sustained, consummated, sexual relationship. NOBODY except a sociopath reacts violently to rejection after a brief flirt. Therefore the only possible explanations for why the defendant agreed to take part in this trial are that (1) he had agreed to do so, perhaps under coercion of some sort, possibly to protect his girlfriend from being charged as his accomplice, or (2) he was an imposter who agreed to impersonate the real defendant, even at the trial.