TV Programmes made after Vincent Tabak's conviction for murder.

[[...]]

Leonora,

Thanks for the overtly condescending response.

As you argued that it isn’t about what people “think” but about “hard facts” and then cited the Salvation Army Chaplain Peter Brotherton not disclosing his employment by another prison, I figured I’d do some research to test this “hard fact”.

I started with your blog post about it. Here is a quote:

“Issue 5 of the Butler Trust’s magazine “Insight” reported the award of a Commendation for 2012–2013 to a Peter Brotherton, Supervising Officer at Whitemoor Prison, Cambridgeshire. The citation refers to his work with the transport of dangerous prisoners to and from court, and to contact with the CPS. Perhaps he received this Commendation as a reward for tricking Vincent Tabak.”

So, I decided to try and prove you were right in your presumption that the man at Tabak’s trial and the award winning prison officer were one and the same by finding a picture of the prison officer in a picture associated with the prison and compare it to the picture on your blog of the man from the trial.

Well, I managed to track down the Butler Trust “Inspire” magazine regarding the awards and here is a link:

http://www.changinglivestogether.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Inspire-5-Book.pdf

If you scroll to page 17 of the PDF you’ll see a picture of Pete Brotherton and Anthony Richardson of HMP Whitemoor. Neither of these men is the man pictured in your blog and therefore I think we can come to the conclusion that the Chaplain Peter Brotherton is not the same man as the Prison Officer Peter Brotherton, which explains why he didn’t reveal to the jury that he was a prison officer, because he wasn’t one.

Anyway, hope that helps.

Baz

It was me who believed I had found Peter Brotherton and thought he was a prison officer, I wasn't sure about the man that they had a photograph of out side the Court of Bristol, was actually Peter Brotherton or Just a Overweight Policeman...

With every photo telling a different story in this case, i couldn''t be sure that The Person they said was Brotherton leaving the court was really him....

[Baz]

Here's Leonora's blog about him:

http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/salvation-army-chaplain.html

Here is the Daily Mail using showing the same picture and saying it's Peter Brotherton:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050518/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Joanna-Yeatess-mother-Teresa-weeps-dead-body-photo.html


Here's the BBC showing his photo:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15350510

Which is a picture of the same man being referred to as the Chaplain Peter Brotherton but a different photo.

[Baz]

If you take a step back and look at everything from Nine, Leonora, Mrswah and now Baz, and then try and build a model that fits all, there appears to only be one solution.

Working backwards, the police “officers” standing outside the court are utterly despondent, the statements read out were delivered in such a manner as to indicate that something is seriously wrong, nothing is delivered with the normal cocky gusto.

Leonora perceives that the confessions were false and, more to the point, staged and completely out of place.

Nine’s epic research points out that at every turn a kind, thoughtful, extremely intelligent man has suddenly become a cold, thoroughly dismissive killer that could strangle a pretty young woman, dump her body and go shopping for crisps, a situation that is as about as likely as winning the lottery without buying a ticket.

Baz’s observations are unintentionally astute in respect of the model, but highlight the where the cement needs to be put between the blocks.

Put yourself into Tabak’s place, imagine you are so intelligent you are probably six questions ahead and going round the same pointless loop of argument day after day after day, wondering when these morons are going to take a hint and go and do something useful instead of high fiving each other after each pointless day.

Sitting in front of you are the comparative academic equivalent of a pair of Troglodytes, trying to be the story twisting experts the police hold up as an example of genius coppers. Their reputations are on the line with this one and they are not going to give an inch, Yeates uncle was a copper so there is an additional pressure to get Tabak to “crack” under their amazing powers of persuasion. And so they keep going, round and round, round and round, until the victim, who’s been exposed to the same stuff over and over again, starts to remember things as they come up in conversation again, and again, and again.

But the Troglodytes are up against a brain that can see them coming and can see the weakness in this petty system developed to persuade your average simpleton to confess to all, and Tabak walks them into the void. All he’s done is shove the system straight up their own arses by simply confessing to manslaughter. As he will have pointed out the Trogs have got a killer out there and he struck fast, hard and with the ability to avoid detection, and he’s probably going to do it again. But now the Trogs can’t touch him, because the inquiry ends here, it stops, and they are the ones who will have to answer in the long term to the queue of bereft parents wanting to know why they let this continue.

And the Trogs became the victims of their own system.

This might account for the behaviour of Clegg, he’s part of the system too and realised that Tabak had damaged them beyond repair, he needed to be made an example of, hence the Judges complicity by handing out an unusually long sentence. The apology to Yeates parents wasn’t for killing Joanna, it was for preventing the Trogs going after her killer.

They don’t like it up ‘em.

AH

So, to clarify because I'm not sure I understand your argument here, the police kept on accusing Tabak no matter how much he insisted he was innocent and so he eventually confessed to get back at them or to make them look stupid... because he's so clever?

[Leonora]

Here's Leonora's blog about him:

http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/salvation-army-chaplain.html

Here is the Daily Mail using showing the same picture and saying it's Peter Brotherton:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050518/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Joanna-Yeatess-mother-Teresa-weeps-dead-body-photo.html


Here's the BBC showing his photo:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15350510

Which is a picture of the same man being referred to as the Chaplain Peter Brotherton but a different photo.

That two Peter Brothertons could be active in the prison service is a coincidence too far. The alternative explanation is that photos have deliberately been used that depict someone other than Peter Brotherton, either by the press at the time of the trial, or in "Insight" magazine. Both are quite plausible. This witness received so much media criticism for his behaviour in divulging what the prisoner had told him, that the prison authorities were obliged to add a warning on the internet that prison chaplains could not guarantee confidentiality. It is quite likely that he does not want to be recognised.

Whether there are two Peter Brothertons or just one does not diminish the evidence that this so-called confession was no such thing, nor the solid evidence that this trial was staged.

[Baz]

That two Peter Brothertons could be active in the prison service is a coincidence too far.

Neither Peter or Brotherton are rare names. There must be thousands of people employed by the prison service. So it really doesn't seem like "a coincidence too far" that there could be a prison officer in one prison called Peter Brotherton and that in a completely different prison there could be a volunteer with the same name. It doesn't even seem remotely odd to me.

It certainly seems infinitely more likely than a septuagenarian Prison Officer (would someone that old really be a prison officer??) was co-opted to pretend to be a Chaplain in the Salvation Army to go in to a different prison to pretend to get a confession from someone so that they can incorrectly convict a man of murder. Why wouldn't the Salvation Army have said "He's not one of ours?" Why wouldn't Tabak say "I didn't confess to him?"

[Baz]

In Response to what you seem to think I have made an error, I will go your way instead.... And explain to me why He didn't ring Rebecca Scott, when it says he rang her friends...

Because she wasn't a local friend and so is unlikely to have been of any use. Maybe your mind would be put at ease if he had said "I rang some of her friends" or "I rang local friends to see if I could find where she had gone/who she was with" or if he listed exactly which people he rang and when and why and exactly every detail of what they spoke about. But the truth is you have Greg saying "he rang her friends" and found a friend who lived miles away that he didn't phone and are now using that as proof of.... what exactly?!?

Rebecca Scott should "NOT" have known that information,(imo) because in an Investigation the Police do tell families etc... not to divulge critical pieces of info.. And her coat being in the flat was a critical piece of info in my book..

Just because the police say that doesn't mean that Gregg didn't divulge it to her, perhaps it wasn't as critical in his book or that her best friend would be allowed to know. She rang him after getting the message from Police perhaps he mentioned the coat in that conversation when telling her the story of that night i.e. "I came in and her coat and all her stuff was there so I was obviously worried!"

[Leonora]

Neither Peter or Brotherton are rare names. There must be thousands of people employed by the prison service. So it really doesn't seem like "a coincidence too far" that there could be a prison officer in one prison called Peter Brotherton and that in a completely different prison there could be a volunteer with the same name. It doesn't even seem remotely odd to me.

It certainly seems infinitely more likely than a septuagenarian Prison Officer (would someone that old really be a prison officer??) was co-opted to pretend to be a Chaplain in the Salvation Army to go in to a different prison to pretend to get a confession from someone so that they can incorrectly convict a man of murder. Why wouldn't the Salvation Army have said "He's not one of ours?" Why wouldn't Tabak say "I didn't confess to him?"

Brotherton is an uncommon name, concentrated in worcestershire and nearby shires. The Salvation Army has the contract for pastoral care at Long Lartin prison, and are no doubt fully aware that they are not allowed to claim client confidentiality in that role. I see no reason to suspect Peter Brotherton of perjury in telling the jury that he was from the Salvation Army. (Nine...Again asserts that he had to be an "Adherent".)

That Vincent Tabak didn't intervene to refute Brotherton's testimony proves that he too (like the judge) was party to the cover-up. This is presumably because he was guaranteed a secret amnesty and a new identity in return. Counsel for the Defence DID, however, "challenge" Brotherton's version, and this is even mentioned in the short accounts of this witness's testimony that are still available on the internet. Counsel made this challenge on the basis of a statement he claimed Brotherton had signed on 16th February 2011, yet this statement was not produced in court to be examined by the judge and the jury. It may well exist, though I suspect that Brotherton was carrying a little tape recorder hidden under his cassock instead. Be that as it may, the failure to resolve the challenge in court by reference to the statement proves that the confession was faked in court by these two parties, with the consent of the defendant.

[Baz]

There are thousands of Brothertons in this country. So not that uncommon I'm afraid.

What would Tabak want secret amnesty from? Why on earth would he want to take the blame for a murder he had nothing to do with to get a new identity? There is no reasonable reason for Tabak to assist in his own demise. It makes no logical sense that I can see.

However, admitting to killing Jo and then pleading guilty to manslaughter because he did it and wanted to avoid a murder charge does make sense, even if it was ultimately futile.

The answer that requires the least supposition is usually the correct answer.

[[...]]

There are thousands of Brothertons in this country. So not that uncommon I'm afraid.

What would Tabak want secret amnesty from? Why on earth would he want to take the blame for a murder he had nothing to do with to get a new identity? There is no reasonable reason for Tabak to assist in his own demise. It makes no logical sense that I can see.

However, admitting to killing Jo and then pleading guilty to manslaughter because he did it and wanted to avoid a murder charge does make sense, even if it was ultimately futile.

The answer that requires the least supposition is usually the correct answer.

Indeed they are Baz.... And which Brotherton appeared at court????  Was it actually The "Brotherton who spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak... Or just a random Brotherton who made an appearance ????

He had assumed the role of a volunteer chaplain in January this year, just a month prior to his first meeting with Vincent Tabak. Tabak, he said, was on 24-hour watch, with a perspex door fronting his cell.

So The Brotherton we saw at Trial was NOT, the Chaplain that Dr Vincent Tabak had spoken too.... Because according to The Sally Ramage papers.......

It is alleged that Tabak made a confession2
 to an unlicensed prison chaplain, who was not
called to give evidence, a most pertinent point

That Brotherton didn't appear in court! And must be the over weight Policeman I joked about!

The same with Father Henwood... 

She is alleged to have been seen by a vicar on her way home in the
snow. Father George Henwood had said that he saw Joanna Yeates and exchanged
pleasantries. He was not called to give evidence in court.

Who were these people at trial......

It now transpires that Vincent Tabak was the last person to see Miss Yeates alive.
Nevertheless, the vicar was not called to give evidence.

He didn't give testimony... So who were the people who assumed these roles????

That last quote..... It now  transpires that Dr Vincent Tabak was the last person to see Joanna Yeates alive...
Was it Dr Vincent Tabak who told the Police that he had seen Joanna Yeates alive  and that is why they Flew to Holland??

I could therefore understand the urgency of The Police flying out to Holland... and not going because of some car moving position....  As that has never made sense to me .....

Back to Brotherton....That is why the media call him "Mr". Because that was all he was ... a random 'brotherton" whom they put on the stand.... Otherwise if he had been a salvation army chaplain they would have called him "Brother Brotherton"..(imo)

So Baz... Brothertons appear to 2 a penny...

But will the real "Peter Brotherton Please stand Up ... Please stand Up....  Please stand up...

Edit... It says unlicensed Chaplain..... Was this Chaplain even called "Brotherton????

I believe I understand... Peter Brotherton... assumed the role of Chaplain... But he wasn't' the Chaplain.....  so who was he....??  Who was the man who appeared at trial??




https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-planned-to-plead-guilty-trial-hears

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

[[...]]

Hi Nine,

I’m a long time lurcker but a first time poster. I’ve been reading this forum for years and years but especially, in the last year, this thread.

Firstly, I have a lot of respect for the tenacity you have shown in your search for information and the amount of time you have obviously spent on this. It’s genuinely incredible to me.

However, I find myself disagreeing with almost all of your posts. It seems to me that you find the slightest piece of information that piques your interest and then through supposition (hence the infinite number of times you have to write “imo”) blow it all out of proportion in the hope that it will lend support to your belief in Mr Tabak’s innocence. Some examples that come to mind are a couple of days ago when you took “he telephoned his mother, her friends, her mother and later” to mean that Greg phoned his mother’s friends, even though he clearly mean’s Jo’s friends, and the time you started try to find meaning in Coldplay’s lyrics with regard to the murder (I didn’t imagine that did I??)

There are many times i may interpret what I read differently to others. It doesn't mean that I am wrong, I could be, but I don't think so... This case is weird... end of.. It never has added up.. The information that has been given over the course of the investigation has differed greatly.. many article have been removed, some are very hard to find..

Coldplay for instance.. That article I referred too, was dated 16th January 2011, the original article was about the DNA on Joanna Yeates lips... Don't know how and when they changed it, But they did... This article i am quoting.. The important information is difficult to read on the site it is hidden within the article....

But copy and paste and all is revealed..

Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Greg Reardon phoned HIS OWN mother on returning to the flat saying 'Jo's not here'
Family's plea over Jo murder

THE ILFRACOMBE family of Greg Reardon, whose girlfriend Joanna Yeates was found murdered on Christmas Day, have appealed for help solving the killing.
Architect Joanna, 25, who lived with Greg in Bristol, was strangled.
Her body was found by walkers eight days after she went missing on December 17.

Greg, 27, reported her missing on Sunday, December 19, after he returned home from a weekend away in Sheffield. Police said on Tuesday they are not treating him as a suspect.

Greg's parents, Lydia and John Reardon who moved to Ilfracombe in 2004, have appealed for "every last scrap" of information to be given to police.
Lydia Reardon, 67, said: "Someone, somewhere may know the one crucial thing that helps the police solve this dreadful crime. Please just pick up the phone and tell them."

Earlier Mrs Reardon had spoken of when Greg called her when he arrived home.

She said: "He phoned me on Sunday and said 'I've just got home and Jo's not here'.

"At the time, I told him not to worry as she must have just nipped out. Then he said all her stuff was still there and later reported her missing."

The Ilfracombe family are believed to have joined the search for Jo before her body was discovered in the snow three miles from her home.

Mrs Reardon said it was love at first sight for her son, who is working towards his professional chartership.

The couple met at work at the Building Design Partnership in Bristol.
She described Jo as "very intelligent and popular".

Mrs Reardon told reporters: "She was a lovely, gorgeous girl. Greg brought her home and she stayed with us a few times. They had been together for a couple of years.

"Greg was so fond of her. We thought when he finished getting the last of his qualifications they would get engaged."

Greg told police he had tried to call and text Jo during the weekend he was away, but had not got a response.

He said he returned home to find Jo missing, but discovered her coat and bag containing keys and her purse inside their home, when he rang friends and family.

Greg appeared at a police press conference before her body was found, alongside Jo's parents, David and Teresa.

Greg told reporters: "I desperately want her back – I thought we would be together forever."

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/regionalnews/Family-s-plea-Jo-murder/article-3047139-detail/article.html
Posted by SteelMagnolia at 7:11 AM

http://steelmagnolia-gossips.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/greg-reardon-phoned-his-own-mother-on.html

[[...]]

Continued.....

This part of the quote from the article is most Interesting..

Earlier Mrs Reardon had spoken of when Greg called her when he arrived home.

She said: "He phoned me on Sunday and said 'I've just got home and Jo's not here'.

"At the time, I told him not to worry as she must have just nipped out. Then he said all her stuff was still there and later reported her missing."

So Greg did ring his own mother first, and maybe I wasn't incorrect that he also called her friends... The most noticeable part of the article is the time he called his mother..

The time of events we had been told at trial and on "TV programs" was he arrived home, hadn't seen Joanna Yeates there, thought she was doing "fun" things.. And around the time "The Apprentice" was due to start, he rang her mobile phone and heard it ringing in her pocket.. This was at 9:00pm

He had Pizza and went out to his car, (now that could be before he rang Joanna Yeates phone) he went around tidying up, found her Rucksack or bag.. (no-one can make their mind up about that) On the table and her keys, purse glasses and I think stripy Jumper were inside..

He told the court he arrived home at 8:00pm.. Now this is where things get weird.... Why would he ring his mum as soon as he got home at 8:00pm??

He didn't know she was missing at that point apparently... He only got concerned according to Ann Reddrop when he rang her phone and found it in her pocket... This was at 9:00pm.

CJ said at the Leveson that Joanna Yeates had been reported "Missing" on the Sunday 19th December 2010... Now was he referring to the fact that Greg had rung his own mum?

We have him ringing Mr and Mrs Yeates at 12:36am on Monday 20th December 2010 and CJ around midnight... He rang the Police around 1:00am and they arrived at 2:00am...

What made Greg ring his mother at 8:00pm with concerns that Joanna Yeates was not at home ?? He must have been in a right flap if his mother is giving him suggestions of "nipping out" This too is a reason that Greg's mum should have been in court...(imo)

We did have articles around the time that Joanna Yeates may have nipped out to get her mail from the main house.. So did that idea come from what Greg's mother had said??

But it is still worrying that we have this report that Greg Reardon phoned his mother as early as 8:00pm when he had just arrived home looking for his girlfriend... Had he been looking for her before ?? Apparently he wasn't unduly concerned when Joanna Yeates hadn't answered his texts and calls and as he told the court he thought she had gone to do fun things....

But the article contradicts that... According to his mother, He phoned her at 8:00pm because Joanna Yeates wasn't there when he arrived home...

If he phoned his Mother... why wasn't she at court to say he had rung her?? I don't even remember ever seeing her at court, he's always with Frank...

The time that Greg rang his mum as soon as he got home, must be accurate... i say this because "Why" remove the articles?? There is NO need...

The only way to to challenge what the article says, is to have Greg Reardon's phone records at the time... then there could be NO dispute..


Edit...  If the time that Greg Reardon called his Mum was 8:00pm.. What day was it?? I'm not just assuming it was Sunday, because nothing adds up in this case... So was it a different day?? Only the phone records and Greg's mum could answer that question!...


http://steelmagnolia-gossips.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/greg-reardon-phoned-his-own-mother-on.html

[[...]]

From the article above....

"Greg was so fond of her. We thought when he finished getting the last of his qualifications they would get engaged."

What happened to being madly in Love?? "Fond" is a word used to describe a close friend.. an acquaintance.. a relative maybe..

But not the girl you are apparently planning to marry!!

[Angelo222]

I notice Countdown to Murder was aired on Channel 5 again yesterday but having read much of the information posted on here I can now see it in a new light.

       
12:05am
Countdown to Murder
Season 2 Episode 1 of 8
The Killer Next Door: Countdown to Murder The events leading up to the killing of landscape architect Joanna Yeates by Vincent Tabak in Bristol on the night of December 17, 2010. Featuring dramatic reconstructions and interviews with Joanna's parents David and Teresa Yeates, her landlord Christopher Jeffries and CPS prosecutor Ann Reddrop

[John]

I notice Countdown to Murder was aired on Channel 5 again yesterday but having read much of the information posted on here I can now see it in a new light.

       
12:05am
Countdown to Murder
Season 2 Episode 1 of 8
The Killer Next Door: Countdown to Murder The events leading up to the killing of landscape architect Joanna Yeates by Vincent Tabak in Bristol on the night of December 17, 2010. Featuring dramatic reconstructions and interviews with Joanna's parents David and Teresa Yeates, her landlord Christopher Jeffries and CPS prosecutor Ann Reddrop

I remember watching it when it was first broadcast and thought it a reasonable depiction of what occurred.  Chris Jefferies has certainly reinvented himself IMO.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2kpoos

[[...]]

I notice Countdown to Murder was aired on Channel 5 again yesterday but having read much of the information posted on here I can now see it in a new light.

       
12:05am
Countdown to Murder
Season 2 Episode 1 of 8
The Killer Next Door: Countdown to Murder The events leading up to the killing of landscape architect Joanna Yeates by Vincent Tabak in Bristol on the night of December 17, 2010. Featuring dramatic reconstructions and interviews with Joanna's parents David and Teresa Yeates, her landlord Christopher Jeffries and CPS prosecutor Ann Reddrop

Ok ... I understand it takes me a while to look at some thing because I am busy with something else..... But I am here at last.... I must admit I had never seen that program 'countdown to Murder Joanna Yeates... and with everything I had up in the air at the time i didn't take much notice when the posts were made.... But ........ On saying that I will and am on my way to picking it apart ....


There are aspects of that program that are a revelation...  there are ideas that shouldn't exist.... But what i plan to do is to number the entire program based on comments and statements and  my observations as to what is revealed... Each number is when someone speaks. be it DCI Phil Jones...... Ann Redrrop.. Mr and Mrs Yeates,, The narrater. Etc etc ...Or an observation by myself.. which you can see,..  I will do this so i can comment at any time on the statements that have being made at the time, and have a reference point to go to and forth from........

I did think I had seen it before and it was just a rehash of the other TV programs... But when I watched it ... I realised I had never seen it before....

I don't know where I am at with this case... questioning why I started it in the first place... And with something else to chew over... I will wait, for my own understanding, as to where I am at....

I haven't fully digested the program... but will be able to find a little more understanding with what I have posted...
hopefully....