Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[mrswah]

I have never heard anything about diminished responsibility in relation to this case.

Their assumptions re VT are out of order, to my mind, but I suppose we have to consider that they were not concerned with him at all for the purposes of this document, but with Chris Jefferies, and emphasising HIS innocence. 

It is all wrong, though, to assume that because someone has confessed, that they did it, and to assume this before a trial has taken place. That is not how the system is supposed to work.

Guilty until proven innocent----------------!

[jixy]

Normally when someone says they are guilty of a crime, there is no trial, no need to witnesses to appear or the expense and time.

The only difference is where they only agree to part of the charge/offence which is what he did. Manslaughter to murder so there is nothing unusual in how it worked out at all

[John]

I cannot see why an application was not made as the defence did not recieve the prosecution papers at this time..
And surely in his clients best interest an application for bail should have been made..
Dr Vincent Tabak was of good character and had no previous convictions...
And wasn't a threat to National sercurity..


So why no application???
Does this not seem odd??????

No, it is not odd at all.  Vincent Tabak was a foreign national facing a murder charge in England.  Bail will almost never be granted in such circumstances.

[[...]]

But....... There was a trial and THE HIGH COURT , knew that he was facing trial...

On 5th May
Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central
Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. He denied murder on the basis
of diminished responsibility. The trial of that issue will take place in the autumn.

They were well aware he had a trial due.... 3 months after their findings.... outrageous(IMO)

So whether he pleaded guilty.... new evidence could quite easily have cast doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak's confession...

And the supposed confession he made to a Priest...

I cannot see how it's THE HIGH COURTS decision to say someone is guilty before, a trial...  Under the Guidelines set out by Attorney General's Guidelines On Disclosure:

Clearly states that an admission of guilt may be over turned by new evidence...


AGAIN......... 1300 pages of new evidence, ( dumped on the defence on the first day of trial...)

Not to mention the significant piece of evidence that was handed into the police, but was not used at trail....

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/300493/jo-crucial-clue-found/

They should have ommitted Dr Vincent Tabak's name from the findings,..... But they didn't!!!

Read my reply:  Reply #414 on: December 01, 2016, 12:39:56 PM »
Read my reply:  Reply #434 on: Today at 11:07:51 AM »


http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367108#msg367108
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367857#msg367857

[[...]]

No, it is not odd at all.  Vincent Tabak was a foreign national who facing a murder charge.  Bail will almost never be granted in such circumstances.

What about the High Court Ruling John?????



The papers said two different thing... he was applying for bail... And he wasn't going to apply for bail..

But According to one source ..Bail wasn't even asked for..

[[...]]

I have never heard anything about diminished responsibility in relation to this case.

Their assumptions re VT are out of order, to my mind, but I suppose we have to consider that they were not concerned with him at all for the purposes of this document, but with Chris Jefferies, and emphasising HIS innocence. 

It is all wrong, though, to assume that because someone has confessed, that they did it, and to assume this before a trial has taken place. That is not how the system is supposed to work.

Guilty until proven innocent----------------!

Yes, But they didn't have to prove CJ's case with saying DR Vincent Tabak was guilty 3 months before he had even had a trial.....

The vicious nature of the media's representation of CJ, should have been enough in it's self!

[[...]]

I have never heard anything about diminished responsibility in relation to this case.

I was trying to find out about when he claimed Diminished responsiblities.. I found this

CPS statement on Vincent Tabak

28/10/2011

CPS statement on the trial of Vincent Tabak

Ann Reddrop, head of the South West Complex Casework Unit, said: "Vincent Tabak was a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man who knew exactly what he was doing when he killed Joanna Yeates. Today, he has been convicted by a jury in Bristol of her murder last year, despite claiming he meant her no harm.

"He was cunning and dishonest towards his girlfriend with whom he maintained a normal relationship - even going so far as to text her shortly after Joanna was dead to say he was bored.

"He manipulated the police by virtue of his own in-depth research on the Internet to keep one step ahead of the investigation before his arrest, looking up extradition and medical details of decomposition.

"He made very selective admissions surrounding the circumstances of Joanna's death, which sought to cast her in an unfavourable light and he kept this up even when he was giving evidence to the jury. Tabak thought his cleverness and deceit would prevent him being convicted of a brutal murder. He was wrong.

"Joanna went missing on 17 December 2010 after meeting friends for drinks. For several days the police mounted a missing person enquiry but with the discovery of her body on Christmas Day it became a murder investigation. The police team undertook a painstaking enquiry into this murder and Vincent Tabak became the focus of their attention following the finding of  his DNA on Joanna's body

"Late in December 2010, the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol. I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna's murder and began preparing the case for trial.

"In May 2011, Tabak admitted the manslaughter of Joanna but that was only part of the story.  The Crown's case is, and always has been, that it was a deliberate act on his part and that is why we refused to accept his plea to manslaughter and he has faced trial for murder over the past four weeks.

"Joanna's family has been here in Bristol during the trial and have listened to much of the evidence. Our thoughts are with them today as Tabak begins a life sentence for killing their daughter."

Ends

  http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_statement_on_vincent_tabak/

But when you scroll down to May 2011... there is no mention of Dr Vincent Tabak

So where's the claim he admitted manslaughter with diminshed responsibilities..

The only other written word i could find about diminished responsibilites was :

Notes for RNZ slot from Ursula Cheer (Associate Professor)
Canterbury University, 7 September 2011

https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/6144/12634054_Notes%20for%20RNZ%20slot_September%202011from%20Ursula%20Cheer.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 

Today I am going to talk about how the Daily Mirror and the Sun published
appalling stores about a man called Christopher Jefferies and were later
convicted of contempt and had to pay out significant damages for
defamation as well.

So she spoke to a class??? students?? did she influence these peoples beliefs on something that hadn't even gone to trial and with new evidence the outcome could have been clearly different...

Vincent Tabak was charged with the murder. On 4th March Mr
Jefferies was informed that he was released from police bail. Just over a
month later, Tabak admitted in court that he was responsible for killing Miss
Yeates, and pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. He denied murder on the
basis of diminished responsibility and was committed for trial on the murder
charge, the trial to be heard about now..

Again this is 1 month before Dr Vincent Tabak's trial, so if an Associate Professor believes he's guilty before trial..

Any Tom Dick or Harry can presume the same!!! on the availability of the High Courts Findings on CJ.....!!!!

So again i refer to my post:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367857#msg367857
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367108#msg367108

Did the High Court Prejudice Dr Vincent Tabak before his trial!!

[jixy]

he did that to himself by saying he was guilty!

It would be a completely different scenario of all you had written was said and done and he yet he remained tight lipped and claiming to be innocent but he didn't...

[[...]]

A Fair Trail needs to have the following apply... (evidence about the stability of his confession could be possibly found in the 1300 page document)....

Again 1300 pages of documentation that the defence didn't get till the day of trial, was reason enough.... If they had the time to cross reference all the time lines I'm sure it would have shown he didn't have the time...

Quote
12. Examples of material that might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or of assisting the case for the accused are:

1  Any material casting doubt upon the accuracy of any prosecution evidence.
 
2  Any material which may point to another person, whether charged or not (including a co-accused) having involvement in the commission of the offence.

3 Any material which may cast doubt upon the reliability of a confession.

4 Any material that might go to the credibility of a prosecution witness.

5 Any material that might support a defence that is either raised by the defence or apparent from the prosecution papers.

6 Any material which may have a bearing on the admissibility of any prosecution evidence.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367108#msg367108

How could he possibly do a google search at 1:46am  and again at 1:47am when he was seen leaving in Tanja's  hatchback at 1:38am???

I'm sure it would have taken him more than 8 mins to get Tanja, A google map search of Canygne Rd to Park Street , gives a driving time of 6 mins....

he got lost for at least 2 minutes ,Then he rang her for directions... so we now have 0 minutes to find where Tanaj is.... Pick her up go for a burger eat it in the car and drive home....

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367317#msg367317

He cannot have possibly used his computer at 1:46am or 1:47 am  to do 2 different searches as he wasn't even at home....

So that evidence alone that wasn't challenged, shows how inaccurate the prosecutions, computer searches were...

WHAT ... Other Evidence was contained within the 1300 page document that could have cast doubt about Dr Vincent Tabak's confession......

At I.38 am, 18 December, you were leaving again in the hatchback.
Is this to collect Tanja from the Coach?
Tabak: Yes.

 
Even if he was seen in the town centre and not at home at 1:38am , it still doesn't give him time to get home and use his computer... As the prosecution claim he did!!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

So that alone covers number (1)... (IMO)

[[...]]

Quote
Quote
12. Examples of material that might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or of assisting the case for the accused are:

1  Any material casting doubt upon the accuracy of any prosecution evidence.
 
2  Any material which may point to another person, whether charged or not (including a co-accused) having involvement in the commission of the offence.

3 Any material which may cast doubt upon the reliability of a confession.

4 Any material that might go to the credibility of a prosecution witness.

5 Any material that might support a defence that is either raised by the defence or apparent from the prosecution papers.

6 Any material which may have a bearing on the admissibility of any prosecution evidence.

(1) The prosecution's evidence in the computer search that wasn't accurate ( he wasn't even at home when they said he did a search)

(2) The Shard of console and The piece of evidence handed into the Police that wasn't used...


(3) The defences own time lines and admission that Dr Vincent Tabak stayed in his Flat till 9:29pm and stating that one thing was for sure Joanna Yeates was killed between 9:00pm and 9:30pm

(4) Prosecution witness that changed their original statements that were available for people to read.... you could call it inconsistencies in statements...(IMO)

(5) Cj and Tanja's lack of appearnce in court could have explained lots.. Whether he had a bike bag for instance, whether CJ saw what he first apparently told police that people where at the gate and he thought one was Jo...

(6) The photographs of the forensice Tent That the police claim they didn't use to cover Joanna Yeates body......

13. It should also be borne in mind that while items of material viewed in isolation may not be reasonably considered to be capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the accused, several items together can have that effect.

Attorney Generals Guidelines.... http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/attorney_generals_guidelines_on_disclosure/


So with the 1300 pieces of evidence not seen until trial and the above...  How can it be fair!!

[mrswah]

I can see that what Jixy says is right:  if someone pleads guilty, there normally wouldn't be a trial, unless the defendant has only partly pleaded guilty:  for example, VT, Peter Sutcliffe and Nathan Matthews all pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but not to murder,with which they had been charged,  so they all had trials.

I can only say that I feel very sorry for an innocent person who makes a false confession ---and many do.  Some do so because they have "special needs", some do so for other reasons  : duress, sleep deprivation while being held in prison, etc etc.  I think it very unsatisfactory that our legal system  takes no steps to check that the confession  is valid.  Sometimes, one only has to look at the timeline , and it is pretty obvious that they couldn't have done it, or somebody might have confessed to killing the victim in a car---when they don't even have a car. 

As far as I am aware, there was no plea of diminished responsibility in VT's case.

A number of things about his trial were very worrying though.  The defence being given a 1300 page document at the last minute is one of them.  As everybody knows by now, I am not happy about enhanced DNA (too often unreliable)  or computer evidence, which can be messed around with.

Jixy and John, what do you make of that document I put up detailing all the equipment needed to recover Jo's body??  Do you have any explanations why all those pumping tenders, a boat, etc might have been needed?  I am very puzzled by this, but then, I don't work for fire and rescue, and (fortunately) I have no experience of recovering bodies.

[[...]]

I can see that what Jixy says is right:  if someone pleads guilty, there normally wouldn't be a trial, unless the defendant has only partly pleaded guilty:  for example, VT, Peter Sutcliffe and Nathan Matthews all pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but not to murder,with which they had been charged,  so they all had trials.

I understand what you and Jixy are saying mrswah, But.. Doesn't the fact he was going to trial make a difference as nothing had been proved .... It was basically a confession...

So the trial could have turned out completely differently.... As with the Attorney generals Guidelines


And the High Court new Dr Vincnet Tabak was going to trial... they say so....

[Miss Taken Identity]

I understand what you and Jixy are saying mrswah, But.. Doesn't the fact he was going to trial make a difference as nothing had been proved .... It was basically a confession...

So the trial could have turned out completely differently.... As with the Attorney generals Guidelines

So is he going to appeal and are you going to advise his new council? What will be the grounds of his appeal? He gave a confession under duress?

[mrswah]

Miss Taken Identity:  on page 26 of this thread, I have included a document giving information about all the fire and rescue equipment used to recover Joanna's body (which the jury and the public were told was found  by dog walkers).

Documents speak for themselves, but can you explain why so much equipment was needed?  A boat????   A crane????  All those pumping tenders????   Do you know anyone who works for the fire and rescue service who could explain this?


The document was obtained through a FOI request:  it was not revealed to the public (or the jury) , apart from a very  brief mention on ITN news and in the Daily Mail, and in the local Bristol papers.  Very few people have questioned it, although it casts doubt on where Jo's body was actually found.

You may ask why that matters, and somebody pointed out that it makes no difference to who murdered her.  If there is a valid reason why all that equipment was needed, fair enough.  If there isn't, it casts doubt on the story we have been told, and , depending on where the body was actually found, it could well suggest that more than one person dumped it. 

If we have not been given the true facts about where the body was found, what else haven't we been given the truth about?  The dog walkers, remember, did not actually appear in court and give their evidence under oath: their evidence was read out from a written statement.

[[...]]

Miss Taken Identity:  on page 26 of this thread, I have included a document giving information about all the fire and rescue equipment used to recover Joanna's body (which the jury and the public were told was found  by dog walkers).

Documents speak for themselves, but can you explain why so much equipment was needed?  A boat????   A crane????  All those pumping tenders????   Do you know anyone who works for the fire and rescue service who could explain this?


The document was obtained through a FOI request:  it was not revealed to the public (or the jury) , apart from a very  brief mention on ITN news and in the Daily Mail, and in the local Bristol papers.  Very few people have questioned it, although it casts doubt on where Jo's body was actually found.

You may ask why that matters, and somebody pointed out that it makes no difference to who murdered her.  If there is a valid reason why all that equipment was needed, fair enough.  If there isn't, it casts doubt on the story we have been told, and , depending on where the body was actually found, it could well suggest that more than one person dumped it. 

If we have not been given the true facts about where the body was found, what else haven't we been given the truth about?  The dog walkers, remember, did not actually appear in court and give their evidence under oath: their evidence was read out from a written statement.

The link below is for the post mrswah made with the pdf of the fire brigade appliances that attended, not just on Christmas Day, but on several days later..???

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg366721#msg366721
Some of the fire brigade services where there as late as 9:45pm Why???????

The Avon Fire Service helped police remove the body, which was clothed and covered in snow, from the scene in order to preserve the site for a thorough forensic examination.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-police-satisfied-body-271510

Ah.... it was the site they were protecting??? Shouldn't it have been the Joanna Yeates first????
Surely.. it's the Police that protect the scene of crime .. not the fire brigade..
Jo was removed at 4:45pm and was taken away in an ambulance , before Dr Delaney has examined her at 6:00pm
Check my previous post:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367730#msg367730


But The official version is that they used a broom handle...

Broom handles were used.... but that was to search the verges not remove Joanna Yeates...

They must have needed the appliances to reach where she was.....
The body was thawing out... I refer to my post below:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367513;topicseen#msg367513

It highly unlikely that a body had lain in Longwood Road since 17th Dec 2010... It was an area frequented by many dog walkers, and I read about a woman who saw a white van as she came out from the opposite side of the road near the entrance.. (can't find the article)... Could also have seen it, if it was there...

The picture I have attached with two people speaking the the police officer, is quite odd... Who are they??
They can't be witness,s as they would keep anyone away from the crime scene....

The police, have avoided explaining the fire brigade appliance, and as with the forensic tent, to cover Joanna's body to protect the scene, they also deny using the forensic tent in court for the protection of Joanna Yeates...

So... if the forensic tent wasn't for the protection of Joanna Yeates... what was it covering up...
It must have been an important piece of evidence , if they used the tent to protect it...
But.... nothing was brought to trial regards what they were protecting under THAT Tent....

The tent would be used to protect the body from further injury, whilst being removed and the pathologist has had a chance to examine, when it is in situ....


There were 43 injuries , who knows which injuries where made whilst recovering the body from a possible place that wasn't easy to access...
Straps and harnesses were used as part of the equipment the fire brigade lists in the pdf..

The fire brigade where there before the Dr....
The body was also transported in an ambulance before the Dr. examined it....

How is that protecting the scene????

I was under the impression, that you secure the scene and that the Dr examines the body before it is removed.. Then the foresnsic team come in wearing white coveralls as to not contaminate any possible evidence there...

Police are just wandering about I don't think i've seen anyone in coveralls.. The amount of fire service personal at the scene will only add to contamination...

Plus the two strangers who are allowed just to hang about: picture 4

So anyone got an answer for this as mrswah has asked????

I think a thourgh examination of the PDF needs doing.... 8 apppliances uded

They attended the scene on no less than 4 occasions:

The 25th Dec 2010  with 27 crew members attending in total?? ( adds to contamination of scene)

The 27th Dec 2010  with  4 crew members attending

The 28th Dec 2010  with  4 crew members attending

The 29th Dec 2010  with  2 crew members attending

Why would the fire service need to attend the scene of a murder enquiry 4 different days???
what were they recovering?? cleaning up??
Why would they need them there on so many ocassions... And why was this not mentioned in court!!!


.

What's the big folder the guy in high viz holding and why would he need it at a crime scene??????

Picture 3


EDIT: 7:50pm  I think why I have a problem with the forensic, tent... Is....... I believe there's Two forensic Tents..... One to the left in the entrance of the quarry, and one slightly further up the road...





[attachment deleted by admin]