I have doubts about whether Vincent Tabak is actually guilty. Yes, I know he may well be, and I am not accusing anyone else, but I have questions, that I hope some of you may be able to answer:
Firstly, yes, I know he made a confession, but how do we know he didn't make it under duress?
Why was it necessary to employ a team of fire engines and a crane to retrieve Joanna's body? (The Daily Mail carried a photo of this at the time).
Why was Tabak's DNA not found in Joanna's flat, if (as was claimed in court) he killed her there?
What evidence is there that he had her body in the boot of his car when he went to ASDA?
How do we know exactly what he searched on his computer, and do computer searches necessarily make one a murderer? (I think the police would have a field day if they looked at mine!!)
Why, once the police had Tabak's DNA, (or so they said) ,did they not release Christopher Jefferies immediately?
Why did neither Jefferies, nor Tanja Morson, nor Tabak's boss, appear in court to testify as to his character?
Ok, so these are some of my questions. I would be happier about Tabak's conviction, had there been better evidence, for instance, CCTV images showing him following Joanna home, or evidence of him buying cleaning materials in ASDA, rather than crisps! To me, he does not seem a very likely murderer, and I am not saying this merely because he has a PhD, as of course I realise that someone with a PhD can commit murder! But, really, a sexually motivated murder committed by someone who had only ever had one girlfriend, and who just happened to be the next door neighbour?
A lawyer called Sally Ramage, who was in court during the trial, has written an interesting account of it. Don't remember the link, but if you google Sally Ramage/Vincent Tabak, you will find it.