UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest => The murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol in December 2010. => Topic started by: [...] on April 05, 2017, 10:53:47 AM
-
We are all aware that Dr Vincent Tabak made a Plea at The Old Bailey in May 2011, there are many odd things with this plea and I am not here to hazard a guess as to what and wherefore..
But if you think about it Why have his plea at The Old Bailey when ALL of his other appearances were at Bristol??
It's odd... at the time I didn't think it was odd, because I assumed that the TRIAL itself was going to beheld at The Old Bailey, but as we know it wasn't!!
Everyone believes whole heartedly that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty because of the Plea... it's the one and only piece of evidence that they had, how they obtained it is anyones guess, but I don't like confessions...
I don't like confessions without hard evidence to back it up.... And as far as I am concerned, there is NO evidence in which to back up this confession....
There's a story... thats just what it is.... a story... it does't cover nearly anything in this case.... They make suggestions on how bit's of evidence may have ended up in certain places, but not really... I'll give you an example...
Dr Vincent Tabak says, he put Joanna Yeates on her bed...well she needs to have been near her bed at some point, because an earring was found there...
That doesn't explain the earring properly... One of the Earring was inside the bed duvet, well that couldn't have happened if Dr Vincent Tabak had just put her on the bed... Don't forget they have time constraints so he wouldn't have been in the flat that long.. and if a fight.. attack took place there, when did he say he made the bed????
Which brings me to another point the defence should have asked Greg Reardon or was it her father......
What clothes did they pick up from the floor of the bedroom to find the OTHER EARRING????? Was it the clothes she wore to the RAM???????
Because to me , that suggest that it came off as she removed her own clothes!
Always questions...
Anyway back to the plea... It's holier than a sieve, it's there just to satisfy, yet it doesn't, because most of the public still had questions they wanted answering after the trial had finished...
I started this thread so people can add information to show how people falsley confess and also for the plea itself to be scrutinized...because I think it need it!!!!!!
28
-
I'll refer to "The West Memphis Three case"....
A confession there, was what put 3 young men in prison for life and it was the evidence that was found that the confession was proven to be false..
I believe that there is EVIDENCE to prove that The Plea that Dr Vincent Tabak made was WRONG and if you want to call it a Confession I believe it to be FALSE!!
-
I think we need to work backwards to get to this confession.... bring all the other evidence in first to create the doubt that the confession/plea is TRUE!!!!
-
...
But if you think about it Why have his plea at The Old Bailey when ALL of his other appearances were at Bristol??
It's odd... at the time I didn't think it was odd, because I assumed that the TRIAL itself was going to be held at The Old Bailey, but as we know it wasn't!!
...
The first two preliminary Crown Court hearings were held in Bristol before Judge Colman Treacy, who, at the second hearing (at the end of January 2011) pencilled in his calendar the dates of the plea hearing (4th May) and the trial, which were both to be heard "in this Court". This was reported in the news media. The plea hearing was put back, however, to 5th May, and its venue moved to the Old Bailey.
I believe that only those whom the CPS wanted to attend the plea hearing (including the news media) were notified of the change, and that the hearing was moved for this very reason. There is a lot of evidence to support this, which I have listed before, including the change of judge, the change of QCs, and who was and who was not in court for the plea.
-
I'll refer to "The West Memphis Three case"....
A confession there, was what put 3 young men in prison for life and it was the evidence that was found that the confession was proven to be false..
I believe that there is EVIDENCE to prove that The Plea that Dr Vincent Tabak made was WRONG and if you want to call it a Confession I believe it to be FALSE!!
I don't know about any West Memphis Three, but false confessions by young men in police stations are daily occurrences - especially long ago or in other countries less civilised than this one. Amanda Knox's "confession", on the other hand, must be one of the more notorious and bizarre police station confessions. It was eventually discredited, not least because she and her boyfriend were questioned as suspects (without any tape or video recorders) even though they believed they were being interviewed as witnesses, and they were refused access to lawyers until after they had been remanded by the magistrate.
The first person publicly to link the Amanda Knox prosecution to that of Vincent Tabak was the Chief Constable of Bristol. However, the plea that Dr Vincent Tabak made was not actually made by him!
-
You're way out on a limb on this one. Vincent Tabak confessed to killing Joanna and provided police with more than enough evidence of what went on that evening to be assured that he was telling the truth.
Tabak never changed his story throughout the trial process and stands by his confession. There is absolutely nothing you have provided which can change that situation Leonora.
Suggesting that it wasn't the real Vincent Tabak who appeared at a pre trial hearing simply undermines you're credibility.
-
You're way out on a limb on this one. Vincent Tabak confessed to killing Joanna and provided police with more than enough evidence of what went on that evening to be assured that he was telling the truth.
Tabak never changed his story throughout the trial process and stands by his confession. There is absolutely nothing you have provided which can change that situation Leonora.
Suggesting that it wasn't the real Vincent Tabak who appeared at a pre trial hearing simply undermines you're credibility.
While I don't believe any impostor took the place of Vincent Tabak, I am not sure he told the truth either. He said that he had killed Joanna in her flat, and then moved her body to his. So, where was the forensic evidence?
He said he turned off Joanna's oven and television-----so where were his fingerprints?
And, we never heard about any forensic evidence being on that front door that he appeared so interested in.
-
You're way out on a limb on this one. Vincent Tabak confessed to killing Joanna and provided police with more than enough evidence of what went on that evening to be assured that he was telling the truth.
Tabak never changed his story throughout the trial process and stands by his confession. There is absolutely nothing you have provided which can change that situation Leonora.
Suggesting that it wasn't the real Vincent Tabak who appeared at a pre trial hearing simply undermines you're credibility.
There was therefore no reason, at the time when his plea was entered, why Vincent Tabak should have made that plea. You have already rejected any suggested that he might have been tortured into pleading guilty, and in any case there would have been no need to move the plea hearing to the Old Bailey and change its date if a false plea were going to be obtained by such methods.
-
There was therefore no reason, at the time when his plea was entered, why Vincent Tabak should have made that plea. You have already rejected any suggested that he might have been tortured into pleading guilty, and in any case there would have been no need to move the plea hearing to the Old Bailey and change its date if a false plea were going to be obtained by such methods.
Vincent Tabak pled guilty because he was guilty so what concept of that don't you understand Leonora?
The guy made a grievous error and panicked but was man enough to admit to it in the end instead of attempting to wriggle out of it. For that at least he deserves some credit. All you are doing is undermining his sincerity. In a moment of madness he destroyed both Joanna's life and his own, at least he should be free some day unlike his victim.
-
While I don't believe any impostor took the place of Vincent Tabak, I am not sure he told the truth either. He said that he had killed Joanna in her flat, and then moved her body to his. So, where was the forensic evidence?
He said he turned off Joanna's oven and television-----so where were his fingerprints?
And, we never heard about any forensic evidence being on that front door that he appeared so interested in.
The absence of forensic evidence from the flat, like the absence of testimony from Chris Jefferies, Tanja Morson and Shrikant Sharma, is a very important pointer to the falseness of this prosecution. However, evidence which isn't there cannot really tell us how that guilty plea came to be entered at the Old Bailey.
I used to speculate that the CPS might have told Paul Cook QC, "We have evidence of your client's DNA and fingerprints in Joanna's flat", in order to persuade him to abandon the bail application and advise Vincent Tabak to plead guilty of manslaughter. However, not so long ago I learnt that police are forbidden to elicit a confession by making false claims about the evidence they have. (There was such a case in New York a couple of years ago, when I young Danish kindergarten employee was deceived during interrogation into believing that police had CCTV showing him behaving inappropriately towards a child.)
Vincent Tabak entered a plea which you, mrswah, believe he shouldn't have made, as it was you who listed the main weaknesses of his conviction when you first started this discussion. So how do you explain how this plea came about? Surely it wouldn't have been necessary to force poor Mr. & Mrs Yeates, their police liaison officer Emma Davies, DCI Phil Jones, and Nigel Lickley QC, to travel from SW England to London to hear the real Vincent Tabak plead at the Old Bailey, if he had merely been hypnotised into pleading guilty?
-
Really? Hypnotism now?? That really is sad Leonora.
-
Vincent Tabak pled guilty because he was guilty so what concept of that don't you understand Leonora?
The guy made a grievous error and panicked but was man enough to admit to it in the end instead of attempting to wriggle out of it. For that at least he deserves some credit. All you are doing is undermining his sincerity. In a moment of madness he destroyed both Joanna's life and his own, at least he should be free some day unlike his victim.
Can you please drop the "broken record" Angelo222 and stop casting aspersions on my understanding? The only evidence that Joanna's killing occurred in her own flat, rather than elsewhere, and that she died at a time when he had no alibi, rather than later, when he did have an alibi, comes from his own testimony and his own "enhanced statement", which his own lawyers drew up and which he signed 4½ months after he entered his plea. How else could his lawyer talk him into making a guilty plea that the CPS would not have been able to prove in court, unless they were all agreed on providing Jo's parents with a scapegoat and Vincent Tabak with a secret amnesty and a new identity?
-
Even I had to laugh at that one Angelo222 @)(++(*
-
Can you please drop the "broken record" Angelo222 and stop casting aspersions on my understanding? The only evidence that Joanna's killing occurred in her own flat, rather than elsewhere, and that she died at a time when he had no alibi, rather than later, when he did have an alibi, comes from his own testimony and his own "enhanced statement", which his own lawyers drew up and which he signed 4½ months after he entered his plea. How else could his lawyer talk him into making a guilty plea that the CPS would not have been able to prove in court, unless they were all agreed on providing Jo's parents with a scapegoat and Vincent Tabak with a secret amnesty and a new identity?
People plead guilty to things they haven't done.. in the vain hope that the evidence if presented properly WILL show that they are Innocent of these Claims and Pleas...
-
People plead guilty to things they haven't done.. in the vain hope that the evidence if presented properly WILL show that they are Innocent of these Claims and Pleas...
You've lost me completely now, no sane person pleads guilty to murder if he or she is innocent.
In any event, a reminder to all. Let's keep the debate constructive guys and look at the evidence of what took place rather than what some surmise occurred. TY
-
Really? Hypnotism now?? That really is sad Leonora.
Instead of simply making fun of arguments posted by other members, Angelo222, why don't you explain what made him plead guilty to a crime he hadn't committed, when there was no evidence against him? Was it done by forcing him to share a cell with a violent prisoner who insisted on playing a broken record 24 hours a day? Long Lartin specialises in violent prisoners serving long sentences.
-
Can you please drop the "broken record" Angelo222 and stop casting aspersions on my understanding? The only evidence that Joanna's killing occurred in her own flat, rather than elsewhere, and that she died at a time when he had no alibi, rather than later, when he did have an alibi, comes from his own testimony and his own "enhanced statement", which his own lawyers drew up and which he signed 4½ months after he entered his plea. How else could his lawyer talk him into making a guilty plea that the CPS would not have been able to prove in court, unless they were all agreed on providing Jo's parents with a scapegoat and Vincent Tabak with a secret amnesty and a new identity?
And just a tad of DNA.
-
You've lost me completely now, no sane person pleads guilty to murder if he or she is innocent.
In any event, a reminder to all. Let's keep the debate constructive guys and look at the evidence of what took place rather than what some surmise occurred. TY
People do and have pleaded guilty to murder, it's been proven I believe mrswah posted on this subject in the main thread.
So.... why is the plea needed ??? (keeping on topic)
Was it admissible at his main trial??? The plea in itself was the evidence that the prosecution had, not anything else.... not weak DNA... it's the plea that is the cornerstone of the Prosecution case..
What actually backs up this plea..... NOTHING as far as I can see.. it's weak beyond belief... it's holier than thou...
I've written on the "Defence will State their case" thread, that I believe the jury only had the option to find him Guilty Of Murder Or Not Guilty of murder... I do not believe they had the option to find him guilty of Manslaughter....So with that in mind, what does this plea do???
We have our minds confused by the information... we need clarity... Could he have withdrawn the plea at any time????
If he only had the charge of Murder and the Jury had only to find him guilt of Murder Or Not... Then where is the evidence to back up this so called plea?????
How does the evidence prove he did it... The plea says he did it....... BUT....... anyone can say they did anything...
I do believe I need to clarify that the Jury had two options and two options only.....
(1): Guilty of Murder
(2): Not Guilty of Murder
I believe they were swayed by the PLEA.... and not the evidence... because just like some people believe they too would have probably said
"No sane person would plead guilty to murder"....
And they believed he was guilty of causing her death!!!! because he said he was responsible... But at No point does he actually say he killed Joanna Yeates...
And if they were only given 2 choices at to his guilt, then they (IMO) went with Guilty of Murder, because I don't think there was a Manslaughter option!! (I Could be wrong)..
So we do not know what would have happened if the Jury said "Not Guilty"!!!
Where would that leave Dr Vincent Tabak.... would he be able to withdraw his plea????
-
Question?????
Is the Plea ever mentioned at the Murder Trial ?????
This is extremely important..... Does the fact that at The Old Bailey.. Dr Vincent Tabak entered a Plea ever get mentioned in The murder trial??????
I don't believe it does!!!!! Someone enlighten me please
Are the words "Old Bailey ever uttered"????? Are the words "guilty" ever uttered by the Prosection or the defence in relation to the PLEA at "THE MURDER TRIAL" ???
-
I can believe that a sane person could plead guilty to a crime he or she did not commit, under the following circumstances:
Sleep deprivation, especially if combined with drugs to "help" one sleep.
Solitary confinement (don't think that would bother me too much, actually, but it would be hell on earth for many people).
Loss of contact with family and friends, and feeling alone in a foreign country.
The very thought of being charged with a crime one hadn't committed.
Relentless questioning by police.
How's that for starters?
-
I can believe that a sane person could plead guilty to a crime he or she did not commit, under the following circumstances:
Sleep deprivation, especially if combined with drugs to "help" one sleep.
Solitary confinement (don't think that would bother me too much, actually, but it would be hell on earth for many people).
Loss of contact with family and friends, and feeling alone in a foreign country.
The very thought of being charged with a crime one hadn't committed.
Relentless questioning by police.
How's that for starters?
I have been trying to work out why he couldn't remember half of what was supposed to have taken place... And there are techniques that can be used... I am NOT saying they were, just looking at it from a different angle...
I was looking at False Memory as I follow various people on Twitter.. False Memory came up in a Tweet... so I looked and found this:
For the other 30 students the false event was an emotional event for example the loss of a pet or a personal injury. In each subsequent interview the students were asked to describe to the researcher what happened during each of the two events and to give as much detail as possible.
When they struggled to recall any details about the false event they were encouraged to use memory techniques to help them remember more details. They were asked to think about how vivid the memory was to them and how confident they felt about all the details surrounding the memory of the event.
That reminded me of when Dr Vincent Tabak was asked by Clegg to close his eyes to relive the event!!
Then this reminded me when Clegg told Dr Vincent Tabak, (as if he was annoyed..)
Defence Counsel: I will tell you to start to remember what you did and when you took
your hand away from Joanna's neck. Now. When you took your hand away, what did she
do?
Dr Vincent Tabak Cannot remember on Numerous occasions...... And Clegg always asks him if he can REMEMBER.... Just sounds a bit odd now,......
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Dr Vincent Tabak remembers... or not...
Defence Counsel: Can we just put the timeline to one side? What did you do after 7.37pm?
Tabak: I drank a beer. I watched TV- I cannot remember what. I had supper- a readymade
pizza. Then I decided to go out again.
Defence Counsel: Did she hit herself as she fell?
Tabak: I can’t remember- I was still in a state of panic.
Defence Counsel: Did the cover become inverted?
Tabak: I can’t remember.
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I remembered that there were some disposal containers on the road in Clifton.
Defence Counsel: Were they on wheels?
Tabak: I can’t remember.
Then back to the article:...
When recalling the true events, those which had actually happened, the students were more confident in their memories than those which were false. However, the false event recollections were entirely believable.
I thought about this... when he talks about his earlier life and his education Tanja etc... his answers are more believeable after that it seems vague to me...
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline chart again. No 76. Jo Yeates did not get back to
her flat until 8.37 or thereabouts. Timeline 39- you ultimately went to Asda at approx
10.13 pm.
Can you help by telling what time you believe you went to Asda?
Tabak: No not exactly.
Can you help.... it sounded weird to me in the first place.... he's not a child.. why talk to him in that manner...
From this point onwards, Dr Vincent Tabak's answers get vaguer...
I don't really know what I am saying, but It seems coincidental.. thats all and possible if not probable... but as we don't know very much about his incarceration in the early days, then nobody know what took place.... They certainly didn't have someone to evaluate him mentally or they would have been a report at trial....
And for a horrific crime, he fails to answer some 80 questions....I believe......
Edit:.... Maybe thats why Dr Vincent Tabak says he was Responsible for her death... He Never admits to killing her ever!
“…But, at the very least, this research calls into question whether we should be putting so much weight on any memory in court”—especially in the absence of corroborating proof. It’s sort of a reality check.”
Yes indeed... thats why I like everything brought into question... I need to know why the evidence doesn't stack up!!!
https://www.crimetraveller.org/2015/10/implanting-false-memories-of-crime/
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
And just a tad of DNA.
Low-copy DNA, which could not be challenged by the defence, as the sample was all used up in the enhancing process. This does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and I did read (don't remember where, sorry!!) that without the guilty plea, the forensic evidence would not have been sufficient to convict VT.
Just a tad-----indeed. One would have expected there to be good forensic evidence, IMO.
-
Low-copy DNA, which could not be challenged by the defence, as the sample was all used up in the enhancing process. This does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and I did read (don't remember where, sorry!!) that without the guilty plea, the forensic evidence would not have been sufficient to convict VT.
Just a tad-----indeed. One would have expected there to be good forensic evidence, IMO.
Completely agree mrswah
-
As pointed out by Nine, VT did answer early questions satisfactorily (those concerning his background, family, work, etc).
All those "can't remembers" could be for one of the following reasons, and different posters have differing views on this.
He might have been told/guided as to what to say in court, and had not committed the crime. Therefore, he merely forgot the answers he had been told to give.
He might have killed Jo, and was ashamed of what he had done, and so did not want to remember.
He might have killed Jo accidentally, and the total shock of what he had done, and having to live with it, caused him not to remember.
He might just be an evasive liar.
He might have been suffering from "false memory syndrome", which, I understand, is a recognised condition in the psychiatric world.
I'm going with the first one, and I'm sure I'm in a very great minority!!! I'll leave you all in peace to make up your own minds
He might have killed Jo accidentally, and the shock of living with what he had done caused him not to remember.
He might have just been an evasive liar.
He might, indeed, have been suffering from "false memory syndrome", which, I understand, is a recognised condition.
I go with the first one, and I expect I am one of the few who does-----but we must all make up our own minds!
He might
-
Adding to my previous post... "False memory"... I was thinking how it would apply to someone who was Placid....
Then I found this..
People who were more knowledgable about a subject were nearly twice as likely to remember incidents relating to that topic that never happened.
He goes on to say:
Lead author Dr Ciara Green, a lecturer in the school of psychology at Dublin said: “Increasing scientific and public understanding of the causes of false memory is an important goal, particularly in light of some of the more negative consequences associated with the phenomenon, including faulty eyewitness accounts and the controversies surrounding false memories of traumatic childhood events.
Researched...
The research is presented at the a annual conference of the British Psychological Society’s Cognitive Psychology Section in Barcelona.
According to the screenshots and the link below... A person emotional state can have baring on false memories..
And the constant showing of Images of Joanna Yeates body created an extremely emotional Dr Vincent Tabak... For this detatched crazy person... he was far from detached in the court room!!!!
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4xt2f1q4
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/08/24/why-experts-get-it-wrong-being-knowledgeable-about-a-subject-imp/
-
Other instances which could lean towards a "false Memory".. if I am looking at this angle.. Is when Dr Vincent Tabak corrects himself, but in an odd way... I'll give you an example..
Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.
Then:...
Defence Counsel: Then you took the body out to the street?
Tabak: No. I backed the car into the drive.
Then he says:....
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road?
Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road.
This answer has nagged at me... why say two opposite things... if he backed the car into the drive , then the boot cannot face the road!!
Defence Counsel: Then in Holland the English police took your DNA. What did you think
would happen?
Tabak: I was thinking I would be arrested anytime.
Defence Counsel: Do you know what DNA is?
Tabak: Yes.
So he believe he would be matched.... So why say this??
Defence Counsel: In your first statement, you lied. Why did you lie?
Tabak: I was hoping that they didn’t have enough evidence and I was hoping they would
let me go.
You can't have it both ways... he either knew it would be a sure match, which begs the question why voluntarily give a DNA sample at all...
Then on the other hand he says he hoped they didn't have enough evidence...
These contradictions nag at me.....
And here he accepts responsibility, but in a strange way...
Defence Counsel: What did you think would happen?
Tabak: I was sure I would be arrested. Tanya kept me going. Can I say that I am really
sorry for being responsible for her death. I am really sorry for putting her parents through
all that worry that week before she was found.
Who told him he was responsible for the death of Joanna Yeates??? Because that is a really bizarre answer!!!
-
I can believe that a sane person could plead guilty to a crime he or she did not commit, under the following circumstances:
Sleep deprivation, especially if combined with drugs to "help" one sleep.
Solitary confinement (don't think that would bother me too much, actually, but it would be hell on earth for many people).
Loss of contact with family and friends, and feeling alone in a foreign country.
The very thought of being charged with a crime one hadn't committed.
Relentless questioning by police.
How's that for starters?
Very unlikely imo unless the individual was a drug addict or had mental health problems, none of which applied to Vincent Tabak.
Believe it or not, the prison service has an excellent record for looking after those in its care. That's not to say that on occasion things do go wrong but then that applies to everything in life.
There is no evidence that Vincent Tabak suffered adversely from any of the deprivations you mention above. He admitted his guilt when his conscience got the better of him and never retracted it as some do.
-
Very unlikely imo unless the individual was a drug addict or had mental health problems, none of which applied to Vincent Tabak.
Believe it or not, the prison service has an excellent record for looking after those in its care. That's not to say that on occasion things do go wrong but then that applies to everything in life.
There is no evidence that Vincent Tabak suffered adversely from any of the deprivations you mention above. He admitted his guilt when his conscience got the better of him and never retracted it as some do.
To be perfectly honest, I have never been inside a prison, either as an inmate, a worker or a visitor, so I actually have no idea whether or not prisoners are treated well.
I would guess that some prisoners cope with being "inside" far better than others do, even if the staff treat them all equally well.
I have read (as I am sure everyone has) accounts of inmates attacking other inmates, having their food spat in, etc. At least some of these accounts must be true!
VT was moved from Bristol Prison for his own safety----which indicates that prisoners are not always kept safe.
I understand that a significant minority of prisoners commit suicide.
I also understand that some types of prisoner (eg child killers) are treated far worse than others----at least, by other inmates.
In addition, the prison service has suffered from funding cuts, and , for all I know, the quality of care may not be as good as it should be. It is likely that prisons are short staffed, leading to inmates being "banged up" in their cells for a good part of the day.
So (and, of course, this is my opinion, and I am speculating), I would imagine that some people who were perfectly "sane" before being convicted, develop severe mental health problems in prison. This could be because they believe they were unfairly convicted, or because they are afraid of the other inmates, or because they have been separated from their loved ones, or because they cannot stand solitary confinement.
-
All prisoners are monitored for signs of mental stress from the moment they go inside. Some do hide it though and that is when problems start. Any prisoner can ask to be put on protection if they feel compromised because of their crime or other factors.
If you are attempting to excuse Vincent Tabak's confession on the basis of his treatment whilst on remand I'm afraid it won't wash.
-
All prisoners are monitored for signs of mental stress from the moment they go inside. Some do hide it though and that is when problems start. Any prisoner can ask to be put on protection if they feel compromised because of their crime or other factors.
If you are attempting to excuse Vincent Tabak's confession on the basis of his treatment whilst on remand I'm afraid it won't wash.
Yet... No psychological evaluation was ever presented at trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... who according to Offcial lines needed moving 3 times to 3 different prisons within a 48 hour window and then put in a perspex fronted cell.... as I believe the excuse was he was on suicide watch,,...
How do you qualify for your own private gold fish bowl without having a psychological evaluation in the first place!
-
All prisoners are monitored for signs of mental stress from the moment they go inside. Some do hide it though and that is when problems start. Any prisoner can ask to be put on protection if they feel compromised because of their crime or other factors.
If you are attempting to excuse Vincent Tabak's confession on the basis of his treatment whilst on remand I'm afraid it won't wash.
I agree that it is easy (and also very common, IMO) for people (prisoners or not) to hide signs of mental stress. I have done it myself. Teachers are great actors!!
However, do prisoners necessarily get what they ask for? I would imagine that is up to whomever they ask.
I don't think I am making excuses for VT's plea. As I said, I am only speculating, but, if his conscience had really been troubling him, I would have expected him to admit to killing Jo when he was first arrested. After all, according to his own testimony in court, he was expecting the police to knock on his door, and expecting them to find his DNA, etc. He's an intelligent man, and he would have known the game was up. Others accused of murder (Peter Sutcliffe and Nathan Matthews, being two examples) readily admitted their guilt while being questioned by the police, before they went on remand. They knew the game was up!
I have no experience of being inside a prison on remand, but I can't imagine it is all that great, and if it's someone's first time, and they cannot sleep, despite being given medication to help them sleep, I bet that person can quickly go slightly mad!!
-
... I have no experience of being inside a prison on remand, but I can't imagine it is all that great, and if it's someone's first time, and they cannot sleep, despite being given medication to help them sleep, I bet that person can quickly go slightly mad!!
You are not alone, mrswah. The vast majority of the general public has never been inside a prison either. That doesn't stop them from believing what they are told, and agreeing that prisoners deserve to be properly punished for what they have done, with no books to read, no sex, nor any say in how their lives are run. They either believe that prisoners should be made an example of, as they are in e.g. Peru and Hong Kong, or they believe that prisoners lead cushy lives, especially in foreign countries like Holland and Denmark. Very few people think critically as you do, mrswah, about what they know and what they don't know, and what the consequences are.
IMO prisons should be abolished altogether, or at any rate reserved for locking up former home secretaries and prison officers who masquerade as chaplains and then tell tales. I agree with Dr Martin Luther, who believed in leaving the punishment of unrepentant wrongdoers to God.
-
You are not alone, mrswah. The vast majority of the general public has never been inside a prison either. That doesn't stop them from believing what they are told, and agreeing that prisoners deserve to be properly punished for what they have done, with no books to read, no sex, nor any say in how their lives are run. They either believe that prisoners should be made an example of, as they are in e.g. Peru and Hong Kong, or they believe that prisoners lead cushy lives, especially in foreign countries like Holland and Denmark. Very few people think critically as you do, mrswah, about what they know and what they don't know, and what the consequences are.
IMO prisons should be abolished altogether, or at any rate reserved for locking up former home secretaries and prison officers who masquerade as chaplains and then tell tales. I agree with Dr Martin Luther, who believed in leaving the punishment of unrepentant wrongdoers to God.
A bit deep going back to to the 1500's leonora.... I originally thought you had made an error in your writings and you were referring to A famous civil rights leader....
I wonder why you mentioned him? Don't think he'll be around to help Dr Vincent Tabak do you....
-
A bit deep going back to to the 1500's leonora.... I originally thought you had made an error in your writings and you were referring to A famous civil rights leader....
I wonder why you mentioned him? Don't think he'll be around to help Dr Vincent Tabak do you....
In the 1500's, remember, the treacherous "mainstream media" was in its infancy. Any document older than that was not written with the general public in mind. Although it has nothing to do with this forum, I strongly recommend Deuteronomy Ch. 15 as an explanation of why everything is so pear-shaped. I still believe that Dr Martin Luther was a formidably intelligent, honest man, who knew very well that what he had set in motion could only go wrong, but what choice did he have?
Apparently Martin Luther King went to Washington in 1963 to deliver his standard speech to the expectant multitude, but was interrupted by a Gospel singer, Mahalia Jackson, who urged him to "tell them about your dream, Martin". Whereupon he reportedly improvised the words that made the world sit up and listen.
I am sure we can agree that Peter Brotherton must have confirmed Vincent Tabak's scepticism about wolves in priest's clothing. On the other hand, Amanda Knox, despite her reluctance to wear a cross to please the jury, became very fond of Don Saulo Scarabattoli, the Catholic chaplain to the female inmates of Capanne prison.
-
In the 1500's, remember, the treacherous "mainstream media" was in its infancy. Any document older than that was not written with the general public in mind. Although it has nothing to do with this forum, I strongly recommend Deuteronomy Ch. 15 as an explanation of why everything is so pear-shaped. I still believe that Dr Martin Luther was a formidably intelligent, honest man, who knew very well that what he had set in motion could only go wrong, but what choice did he have?
Apparently Martin Luther King went to Washington in 1963 to deliver his standard speech to the expectant multitude, but was interrupted by a Gospel singer, Mahalia Jackson, who urged him to "tell them about your dream, Martin". Whereupon he reportedly improvised the words that made the world sit up and listen.
I am sure we can agree that Peter Brotherton must have confirmed Vincent Tabak's scepticism about wolves in priest's clothing. On the other hand, Amanda Knox, despite her reluctance to wear a cross to please the jury, became very fond of Don Saulo Scarabattoli, the Catholic chaplain to the female inmates of Capanne prison.
Thanks leonora.. but I don't need a lesson on Black history... That's another topic all together, you'll be quoting Malcolm X next... Or telling me about Rosa Parks... Or The Watts Riots ....
You see the media and television is very deceptive... And as a young boy my son thought that all black people were rich after watching the "Fresh Prince of Bel Air... and as a young black man wanted to go live in America to be as successful as the people he had seen portrayed not really knowing the poverty that the majority of Black families live in...
But the media can twist anything or colour anything in such a way that people believe what they see and read... instead of finding out for themselves why the story doesn't add up.. And why what is put in front of them in pictures can be interpreted in so many ways, unless you have the correct information without the truth redacted then you believe what is presented..
And a British public happily went along with a media that dished up their daily dose of what they saw as a truth.. A British Public that wanted someone to pay for this crime that had been with them in their front rooms over a festive Period when Families spend time with their loved ones and probably the thought of the whole nation went with The Poor Yeates family having such a devastating loss...
It was a very emotional crime for all that followed it.... And a conclusion makes the public happy.. whether or not it is the correct conclusion doesn't seem to come into play.. But it helps a public move on and not worry that maybe there some loony out there who could still strike again...
And so when the media brings out words like confession/plea ... the public don't question this... they go along happily believing that He Must Be Guilty... Case Closed!!
So after the the trial the media are full of salacious stories that only hold true, the belief of the British public that This Dutchman deserves everything he gets because he must have been depraved in the first place...
-
Nine,
You have a similar attitude to me. Feed the press and the public with what they want and everyone is happy, depending on where you fit in to the plot.
We have some big, speculative IFBUTS here, and we, collectively don't have any real evidence to argue the case coherently that Tabak is innocent. However, it is highly unusual for highly educated, rational, sober individuals to suddenly turn into a cold, calculating murderer quite happily trotting round ASDA with a body in the boot of the car whilst planning where to dump the victim and then show no signs of stress, behavioural changes, etc.
What isn't unusual is for the police and the rest of the judicial system to twist circumstances, create confusion by introducing misinformation such as having positive DNA results and other evidence to lend weight to their speculative attempts to secure a conviction. Once you are faced with overwhelming odds stacked against you, whether they are true or not, any olive branch is worth clutching. Our untrustworthy police are likely to use such methodology on anyone they have on the rack, showing them how the charge could potentially b, in part at least, mitigated. The end result is the same, they win, and that, sadly, is the only thing that matters.
I can't see a way forward on this unless Tabak withdraws his admission.
Mr Jeffries, if you're reading this, I really need to talk to you. You may hold an answer you couldn't have realised, no-one else did.
AH
-
Ariel Hunter and Nine
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Also,
I would love to speak to Mr Jefferies, too!
-
I agree, AH, that unless VT says he is innocent, this cannot move forward.
I have been trying, without success, to contact him. I have started a new thread on this, and hope it is going to be approved by the mods, so that people can comment!
-
I agree, AH, that unless VT says he is innocent, this cannot move forward.
I have been trying, without success, to contact him. I have started a new thread on this, and hope it is going to be approved by the mods, so that people can comment!
Dr Vincent Tabak may never speak up... we have to take into account how he is being detained and if he still is in solitary confinement...
The accounts of prisoners
Researchers have found that prisoners in solitary confinement often have little insight into their
own mental state and tend to minimise their reaction to solitary confinement and play down any
mental health problems (Grassian, 1983; Haney, 2003). Segregated prisoners also appear to have
a more negative view of psychiatric treatment in prison and tend to avoid seeking such help (Coid
et al. 2003-1:315). Mental health problems are particularly stigmatised amongst Muslim prisoners
who are reluctant to seek help (Robbins et al. 2005). A report of the inspection of a small unit for
Muslim prisoners detained under immigration law on the grounds of national security in the UK, for
Sourcebook on solitary confinement: The health effects of solitary confinement
example, identified that five of the eight had significant mental health problems but that there was
very little take up of the mental health service provided (An Inspection of the Category A Detainee
Unit at Long Lartin, HMCIP, 2007).
Nonetheless, accounts from prisoners themselves illustrate a
range of severe adverse health effects. What follows is what has emerged from interviews with
prisoners in isolation, or after the event, and from writings by formerly isolated prisoners.
I find this most revealing....
One of the problems most commonly reported by prisoners who were isolated is that they found
it hard to distinguish between reality and their own thoughts, or found reality so painful that
they created their own fantasy world. Researchers link such incidents to the absence of external
stimuli which results in the brain starting to create its own stimulation, manifesting in fantasy and
hallucinations. One study of prisoners who were isolated for periods ranging from 11 days to 10
months reported both auditory and visual hallucinations. One interviewee described how: “the cell
walls start wavering... everything in the cell starts moving; you feel that you are losing your vision”. Others
reported auditory hallucinations: “I overhear guards talking. Did they say that? Yes? No? It gets confusing.
Am I losing my mind?” Prisoners also reported high sensitivity to noise and smells: “you get sensitive to
noise. The plumbing system... the water rushes through the pipes- it’s too loud, gets on your nerves. I can’t
stand it. Meals- I can’t stand the smells....the only thing I can stand is the bread” (Grassian, 1983).
So after 11 days Dr Vincent Tabak could start to hallucinate both auditory and visually... Yet NO medical assessment was ever brought to court...
How is it possible to trust the statement of "Brotherton" (IMO)... If Brotherton was not medically qualified to identify whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak was Hallucinating?// Or Hearing things...!! or unable to distinguish between Reality or his own thoughts!
It's quite feasible with all of the information and interogations taking place that he just imagined he was responsible.. NOT THAT HE DID IT!...
Which would also go to PROVE (IMO) why there were such gapping holes in his testimony... He couldn't answer the more detailed questions because they were possibly not the questions that had been put before him when he was being interogated...
This is why the Police Interviews are SO IMPORTANT!!!
By "May".. when he goes to The Old Bailey which will be months of solitary confinement.. he could have easily pleaded "GUILTY"... because he no longer Knew what was Real and what was NOT Real!!!
And with this in mind we have A possible IDEA why Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't say he was INNOCENT.....
Maybe he just doesn't know his **** from his Elbow anymore....
http://solitaryconfinement.org/uploads/sourcebook_web.pdf
EDIT.... Would Dr Vincent Tabak have been made aware of what supposedly was on his laptop ??
I truly believe that this case needs looking at properly... I have never been convinced about the Internet searches... as he could not have done 2 of them... as he was out of the house at the time... CCTV had shown Dr Vincent Tabak out of his house at 1:38am on 18th December 2010...
Yet i'll repeat... the searches were at : On 18 Dec 2010, Tabak searched at
1.26 am- ‘BBC news’ and ‘weather forecast’
1.46 am- ‘weather forecast’
1.47 am- ‘BBC Bristol news’
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Dr Vincent Tabak may never speak up... we have to take into account how he is being detained and if he still is in solitary confinement...
I find this most revealing....
So after 11 days Dr Vincent Tabak could start to hallucinate both auditory and visually... Yet NO medical assessment was ever brought to court...
How is it possible to trust the statement of "Brotherton" (IMO)... If Brotherton was not medically qualified to identify whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak was Hallucinating?// Or Hearing things...!! or unable to distinguish between Reality or his own thoughts!
It's quite feasible with all of the information and interogations taking place that he just imagined he was responsible.. NOT THAT HE DID IT!...
By "May".. when he goes to The Old Bailey which will be months of solitary confinement.. he could have easily pleaded "GUILTY"... because he no longer Knew what was Real and what was NOT Real!!!
And with this in mind we have A possible IDEA why Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't say he was INNOCENT.....
Maybe he just doesn't know his **** from his Elbow anymore....
http://solitaryconfinement.org/uploads/sourcebook_web.pdf
For goodness sake, VT HAS spoken up - at his trial - and neither you nor anyone else believed him! So why on earth should he speak up NOW? For heaven's sakes don't join the Jones camp - "Only VT knows what happened that night" - Jones is also a PROVEN liar, and deservedly proud of getting away with it.
If VT had been subject to mind-bending treatment that led him to enter a guilty plea, the reaction of his lawyers, his family, his friends, and everyone else on 5 May 2011 would have been QUITE DIFFERENT. You are wilfully ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the plea was faked - without his consent - not least because we know - and VT knows - that the chaplain confession was also faked.
By the time the case came to trial, VT MUST have joined the conspirators. He would only have done that in return for a promise of a secret amnesty and a new identity. That is why no one on his side is saying anything. If there were no conspiracy and no amnesty, then EVERYTHING would have been different, and he would have sacked his lawyers. His new team would have called for a mistrial and an investigation into Judge Field's integrity. None of this has happened.
His brother and sisters wouldn't have sat so meekly in the public gallery if their brother were suffering from isolation hallucinations.
-
For goodness sake, VT HAS spoken up - at his trial - and neither you nor anyone else believed him! So why on earth should he speak up NOW? For heaven's sakes don't join the Jones camp - "Only VT knows what happened that night" - Jones is also a PROVEN liar, and deservedly proud of getting away with it.
If VT had been subject to mind-bending treatment that led him to enter a guilty plea, the reaction of his lawyers, his family, his friends, and everyone else on 5 May 2011 would have been QUITE DIFFERENT. You are wilfully ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the plea was faked - without his consent - not least because we know - and VT knows - that the chaplain confession was also faked.
By the time the case came to trial, VT MUST have joined the conspirators. He would only have done that in return for a promise of a secret amnesty and a new identity. That is why no one on his side is saying anything. If there were no conspiracy and no amnesty, then EVERYTHING would have been different, and he would have sacked his lawyers. His new team would have called for a mistrial and an investigation into Judge Field's integrity. None of this has happened.
His brother and sisters wouldn't have sat so meekly in the public gallery if their brother were suffering from isolation hallucinations.
Leonora I don't go with your theory.... And I'm not here to argue with you... Although there is something incredibly fishy about this case....
I'm in nobody's camp as you call it... I just believe Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent and was hoping the information I provided would go to someway in which to establish a possibility of why he may have made such a statement....
-
Leonora I don't go with your theory.... And I'm not here to argue with you... Although there is something incredibly fishy about this case....
I'm in nobody's camp as you call it... I just believe Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent and was hoping the information I provided would go to someway in which to establish a possibility of why he may have made such a statement....
Nobody could accuse you of being in anyone's camp - I just hope you don't go there!
You have been very active on this forum in exposing numerous absurdities in this case, by producing facts and drawing conclusions - many of them new to me - like VT's "ordinary" bicycle - and you leave us in no doubt that YOU too think they ARE absurdities.
I wouldn't dignify my arguments as "theories" - any alternative scenario would indeed be absurd. You sourself have emphasised that VT had nothing to gain by pleading guilty. Even if he himself was delusional, a lawyer like William Clegg would never have let his client plead guilty UNLESS there was a very serious hidden agenda behind it.
If you "don't go with" what you call "my theory", then you have a lot more more explaining to do. And explaining is not the least of your talents.
-
Nobody could accuse you of being in anyone's camp - I just hope you don't go there!
You have been very active on this forum in exposing numerous absurdities in this case, by producing facts and drawing conclusions - many of them new to me - like VT's "ordinary" bicycle - and you leave us in no doubt that YOU too think they ARE absurdities.
I wouldn't dignify my arguments as "theories" - any alternative scenario would indeed be absurd. You sourself have emphasised that VT had nothing to gain by pleading guilty. Even if he himself was delusional, a lawyer like William Clegg would never have let his client plead guilty UNLESS there was a very serious hidden agenda behind it.
If you "don't go with" what you call "my theory", then you have a lot more more explaining to do. And explaining is not the least of your talents.
leonora... I don't know WHY certain things happened in this case... All I do is find what facts I can.... and cross reference the inconsistencies in the case and statements made by various individuals... using links.... transcripts ...quotes.... images and video's ..
I don't know why they thought Dr Vincent Tabak would fit the bill... because they have never fully explained what in Flat 1 made them think an assault had taken place... A flat that is virtually pristeen...
They contradict themselves many many times.... And are happy to take the word of one person without any evidence to back this up...
The flat was a mess when Greg Returned home... The dishes were in the sink according to her mum.... (So Greg hadn't done the dishes before they arrived)
Who starts doing the dishes when you believe that there has been an abduction????
The parents were more concerned with checking outside and neighbours as to Joanna Yeates whereabouts...
I'm sure it's the last thing on anyones mind... Yet the kitchen is VOID of ANYTHING...
They removed the carpets... Why?? Where's the hoover ??? where's the washing machine ?? why has the flat got NO personality?? It should have the occupants own style imprinted all over it... But to me it looks like they have had the cleaners in...
In all honesty I cannot say why they concentrated on that block of flats... There were many other avenues that would be more suitable eg: Friends/acquaintences/ colleagues..
But they have zoomed into that flat and the rest of the building... without anything shown at court to prove a murder had taken place there.. Rather it shows that it's a clean and tidy place.... That is so wrong on all levels!!! (IMO)..
We can summise that the Police accessed Dr Vincent Tabak's flat before his arrest on 20th January 2010.. but we can't prove it... It's a possibility seeing as they had the keys to the flat and Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson were away from it...
Talking of that.... What Police Investigation makes it Impossible for the neighbours to live in their own home ??
That is WRONG... Also.... They were happy for the man with the sock to wander about the drive... what were they actually doing in those basement flats for all that time?
As you see I have questions I cannot answer... But if there was some great conspiracy going on and identities changing I wouldn't imagine (personally).. that they would have gone through with a full blown trial... After all they had the "Guilty To Manslaughter" plea at The Old Bailey....
If it was a case as you have suggested that someone took Dr Vincent Tabak's place on the video link.... Why did they just not have them pleading "Guilty to Murder" in the first place .... Then the whole thing could be quietly hushed up...
Probably then...no one would have even questioned the case whatsoever!!
-
...
If it was a case as you have suggested that someone took Dr Vincent Tabak's place on the video link.... Why did they just not have them pleading "Guilty to Murder" in the first place .... Then the whole thing could be quietly hushed up...
Probably then...no one would have even questioned the case whatsoever!!
Quite.
For reasons yet to be revealed, Joanna Yeates's disappearance received national coverage, hour by hour, from day one. If Vincent Tabak had pleaded guilty to murder and the whole thing had been hushed up, the news media would have been furious. They had already had to shell out a lot of money to Christopher Jefferies, despite having done no more than print malicious gossip about him fed to them by the police - and they needed a spectacular trial to enable them to recoup their expenses in the libel case.
As the landlord himself pointed out, the media would certainly remain very sceptical about his innocence, as long as they could entertain serious doubts about Vincent Tabak's motive and guilt.
Without his expensive trial, no intelligent citizen would seriously believe someone like VT had murdered JY with no motive and no bad character evidence and no child pornography. All this was needed so as to make it impossible for people like you, me, mrswah and AH to lead normal lives without being accused of having forgotten our alzheimers medicine and worse, surrounded as we are by intelligent people who believe everything they read in the media, no matter how bizarre.
-
Quite.
For reasons yet to be revealed, Joanna Yeates's disappearance received national coverage, hour by hour, from day one. If Vincent Tabak had pleaded guilty to murder and the whole thing had been hushed up, the news media would have been furious. They had already had to shell out a lot of money to Christopher Jefferies, despite having done no more than print malicious gossip about him fed to them by the police - and they needed a spectacular trial to enable them to recoup their expenses in the libel case.
As the landlord himself pointed out, the media would certainly remain very sceptical about his innocence, as long as they could entertain serious doubts about Vincent Tabak's motive and guilt.
Without his expensive trial, no intelligent citizen would seriously believe someone like VT had murdered JY with no motive and no bad character evidence and no child pornography. All this was needed so as to make it impossible for people like you, me, mrswah and AH to lead normal lives without being accused of having forgotten our alzheimers medicine and worse, surrounded as we are by intelligent people who believe everything they read in the media, no matter how bizarre.
CJ never sued the Police..... He did the Papers.... But the media hasn't got the sway I believe to make for a spectacular trial ....
The trial cannot possible be for the reason your suggesting... about recouping losses !