Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?

[The Singularity]

Have to admit I didn't think I was familiar with this case but once googled and watched a You Tube programme following the case it was very familiar. From what I can establish the conviction was pretty safe and the question of manslaughter although possible I do not consider to be highly likely. In this case I think Tabak is banged to rights

[[...]]

First and foremost, we know that DCI Jones and his colleagues are not prepared to let anyone read what was in the landlord's 2nd witness statement. The landlord is reckoned to be an exceptionally reliable witness of unblemished character who saw two or three persons on Joanna's front path just after 9 p.m., probably on Saturday 18th December 2010. Who were these persons, that their identities must be kept secret even 6 years later?

We know that two of Jones's colleagues interviewed both Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend at Schiphol, yet the only details that the court was told about this couldn't have occupied more than 15 minutes of the 6 hours the interview lasted. The DC who testified may not have lied, but the judge ought to have spotted that she didn't tell the whole truth and asked her to explain herself. Once again, what have the police got to hide after 6 years? Why don't you e-mail them?

The public also has a right to know by what process the police so quickly and categorically eliminated Joanna's boyfriend as a suspect, but decided instead to arrest on very insubstantial grounds the landlord, a person of very good character who could have had no motive to kill Joanna and who scarcely knew her. The boyfriend may have had an alibi for the Friday evening, but not for 7 hours during the Sunday evening. Suspecting the boyfriend is standard practice. I repeat this here as there are some who don't seem to have grasped the basic facts of the case.

Did we ever get to see the first witness statement???

I believe too that it could quite have probably been the Saturday 18th December 2010 that CJ saw or heard someone at the little gate...

By Dr Vincent Tabak having a plea impressed upon him (IMO) that stops a full trial taking place where all the witness's would have had to take the stand, and he could have faced his accusers..

It's all neatly wrapped in a 'Plea Bow' and there's The Dutchman, sat there for all to ridicule and say a story that sort of covers the bases, but NOT quite...

I agree Leonora.. usually in cases it's the partner of the deceased who comes under scrutiny first and we are not aware of what the Police did to eliminate him..

But they tried their hardest to have Dr Vincent Tabak in their clutches (IMO)... as you say going out of their way to interview him in Holland when they could have quite easily have waited on his return...

It is extremley odd that the Holland 6 hour interview took place at all and one really has to wonder why??? especially at this point they had not cross referenced any of Joanna Yeates work collegues or close friends DNA..\

There could not have been any evidence at all for the Police to even suspect Dr Vincent Tabak when they went over to Holland, so why the big drama and why take his DNA if they hadn't gone prepared!!!!

There's definitley something fishy about this case...... I just don't know what it is!!!!!

[John]

Given the somewhat complicated criteria for murder versus manslaughter under English Law I believe the verdict was correct.  The evidence from the trial appears to indicate that there was a prolonged assault on Joanna and that she fought for her life.  The claim of accidental killing must surely be discounted in those circumstances.  Although there is no proof that Tabak set out to kill Joanna, the evidence strongly suggests he did so mercilessly in the end.

In those circumstances under English Law, it has to be murder. 


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/

[[...]]

Have to admit I didn't think I was familiar with this case but once googled and watched a You Tube programme following the case it was very familiar. From what I can establish the conviction was pretty safe and the question of manslaughter although possible I do not consider to be highly likely. In this case I think Tabak is banged to rights

Which youtube program did you watch Singularity???

[mrswah]

There's definitley something fishy about this case...... I just don't know what it is!!!!!

I agree!  I don't know what it is, either---------

[Leonora]

Have to admit I didn't think I was familiar with this case but once googled and watched a You Tube programme following the case it was very familiar. From what I can establish the conviction was pretty safe and the question of manslaughter although possible I do not consider to be highly likely. In this case I think Tabak is banged to rights

Did the You Tube programme you saw show the four fire engines, the crane and the 23 fire officers that were needed to recover Joanna's body from the verge of a country lane? Did the programme include an explanation of why the jury was told only that two straps and a broom-handle were used, with no mention of the fire engines? Since you think the right person was convicted, perhaps you would like to explain to this thread the discrepancy between what the court and the public were told and what really happened?

[Leonora]

From what I can establish the conviction was pretty safe and the question of manslaughter although possible I do not consider to be highly likely. In this case I think Tabak is banged to rights

Perhaps you would like to tell this thread of any other murder trial you have researched in which a defendant of good character, with not so much a parking ticket to his discredit, is defended by a barrister who opened his speech with the remark, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I do not ask you to like my client. There is probably nothing to like about him"? With a Defence Counsel like that, who needs a Prosecutor?

[Leonora]

Did we ever get to see the first witness statement???

I believe too that it could quite have probably been the Saturday 18th December 2010 that CJ saw or heard someone at the little gate...

I am sure you and I would be able to find quite lot of unexpected nuggets even in CJ's first witness statement (to the police), but don't hold your breath! It has never seen the light of day. But make no mistake, it's his 2nd witness statement that is the holy grail of this case. Don't be deluded into believing that this is just about two or three persons on Joanna's front path just after 9 p.m. one evening, which most probably was Saturday 18th December 2010. On the contrary, it is what he has NEVER made public that is the real Pandora's box. How can I be so sure of this? I can be sure, not least because EVEN the makers of the high-budget and very pro-landlord "Lost Honour" docu-drama were not able to get EITHER CJ OR the police to give them even a tiny peep at this explosive statement - even though they were meticulous enough to depict the incident itself, as best they could, in their story. Think about the implications of why the landlord and the police would still want to preserve each other's secret so many years after the case was "closed".

[Leonora]

I agree Leonora.. usually in cases it's the partner of the deceased who comes under scrutiny first and we are not aware of what the Police did to eliminate him..

The DC who flew to Schiphol testified in court that it was there, in Holland, while the landlord was still in custody back in Bristol, that she began to suspect Vincent Tabak, whom the police had previously regarded as a witness. By the time of his trial, the arrest of the landlord was universally understood to have been a mistake on the part of the police. Up until one week after Joanna's body was found, the police seemingly knew so little about the fate of Joanna that they had no suspect more serious than Christopher Jefferies, and it turned out that he wasn't their man anyway. If the police really knew so little, then how could they possibly have known enough to eliminate others with the alacrity with which they did so? Were they really bumbling along under a veil of ignorance, as they appeared to be doing, or did they really know more than they were telling, as Joanna's father stated at the time? No TV documentary has even asked this obvious and important question.

[Leonora]

It is extremley odd that the Holland 6 hour interview took place at all and one really has to wonder why??? especially at this point they had not cross referenced any of Joanna Yeates work collegues or close friends DNA..\

There could not have been any evidence at all for the Police to even suspect Dr Vincent Tabak when they went over to Holland, so why the big drama and why take his DNA if they hadn't gone prepared!!!!

You think it extremely odd, I think it extremely odd, but do the other posters on this thread think it odd? They just think it odd that we even bother to think about it at all. I think THEM odd for not seeing the importance of what was discussed during the remaining 5 hours and 45 minutes, after the matters of the direction of the landlord's car (5 minutes), the removal of Joanna's front door (5 minutes) and the taking of the swab accompanied by the fussing of the civilian females (5 minutes) had all been completed. I don't even think the judge odd for not asking the witness, "Detective Constable Thomas, would you please tell the court what was talked about during the remaining 5 hours and 45 minutes of your time in Holland?" Call me cynical, but for "odd", read "hidden agenda".

[Leonora]

Maybe the first Lawyers only gave him a "Base Metal Service" too as he was recieving legal aid.. maybe they didn't look into what the facts really were and passed the hot potato over to Clegg whom is aware of what a "Base metal Service " will actually give you...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg387448;topicseen#msg387448

One aspect I really am curious too, is..... What evidence Cook originally had and did he pass all this evidence over to Clegg??

I say this because Clegg doesn't seem to be aware fully of his clients movements and has him in his own flat til 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010

I feel quite sorry for the unknown lawyer from Crossman & Co and for Paul Cook QC, as I am confident that they both did their best, yet glory was snatched from them. I am also confident that these lawyers kept their client fully informed of the evidence against him, and so whatever case files Mr. Clegg and his colleagues requsitioned from their predecessors, they received.

Do not be deceived if William Clegg seemed not to be aware. William Clegg is the sort of barrister who never says anything in court without a reason, nor does he keep silent without a reason. I do not buy your theory of parsimony.

On the day he was arrested, detectives called at Buro Happold and took away some boxes. No doubt they consulted his bosses at the same time to find out how well he knew Joanna Yeates. Do not be deceived by the silence of Buro Happold. Their account of the case would be far more revealing and credible than the phoney secrets that DCI Phil Jones claims only Vincent Tabak knows.

[Leonora]

If this "mysterious colleague" existed, and had evidence that Vincent and Jo did know each other, why wasn't he or she asked to testify in court? 

If they had known each other, a scenario whereby he  , perhaps,  was likely to "try it on" with her when both their partners were absent, would seem much more plausible, IMO.  Surely, the prosecution team would have wanted that to come out in court???

What motive could the Prosecution possibly have had to call a witness who could testify that the defendant knew Joanna Yeates professionally? This would play havoc with the "enhanced statement" that he had so obligingly signed, demonstrating to the jury that he was a "crazy detached person" quite prepared to inflict 43 injuries on his hapless victim with no motive whatsoever. A plausible scenario would make the defendant seem human and his actions understandable, sympathetic even, especially to the youthful jurors.

[[...]]

It is a mystery to me as to why he was convicted of murder, maybe that is why two jurors declined.   He is an intelligent bloke with a girlfriend, a good job and a loving family such as we were told.  To go out and kill on a premeditated basis was illogical imo.

Given the somewhat complicated criteria for murder versus manslaughter under English Law I believe the verdict was correct.  The evidence from the trial appears to indicate that there was a prolonged assault on Joanna and that she fought for her life.  The claim of accidental killing must surely be discounted in those circumstances.  Although there is no proof that Tabak set out to kill Joanna, the evidence strongly suggests he did so in the end.


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/

How can there be a prolonged assault when the original prognosis stated by DCI Phil Jones was that there were No significant injuries???

[John]

How can there be a prolonged assault when the original prognosis stated by DCI Phil Jones was that there were No significant injuries???

He probably meant visible injuries.

[mrswah]

He probably meant visible injuries.

If Joanna's injuries were not visible, how did they later manage to count 43?

I would imagine a number of these were obtained during the retrieval of her body------which, given the amount of fire and rescue equipment involved, must have been very difficult. The weather conditions could well have accounted for some of them, too.