Can you explain why Vincent Tabak remained passive in the light of his Counsel's extraordinary cross-examination of the so-called chaplain and the DNA witness, and his extraordinary failure to cross-examine and discredit the computer analyst?
Can you explain why he remained passive in the face of his own Counsel's abusive remarks about his own character? - Or why he didn't sack his lawyers, considering that their most obvious line of defence would have been to demonstrate that he was a nice quiet chap liked by his employer and his girlfriend, who had never done anything remotely criminal before?
Secret collusion between a prosecutor, a defence lawyer and a judge is apparently termed "a courtroom group" in the USA. On this thread, we have seen a great deal of evidence that serious collusion occurred. If you can find an alternative explanation for the behaviour of the defence and the judge, then you should be posting it, instead of throwing in the towel.
If Vincent Tabak wasn't expecting a big reward for remaining passive throughout most of the trial, and then putting on a very demanding performance for two days in the witness box, knowing well that this could only lead to a guilty verdict, then you should be posting an alternative explanation than the one I believe to be the only rational conclusion.
We don't actually KNOW that he is innocent, but the trial has served only to hide the true course of events and leave the case unsolved. VT MAY have killed her, but so may the landlord, you, me, mrswah, or anyone else who cannot prove their alibi for the whole of that weekend. Why did Crosland & Co want him to apply for bail, then change their minds, and finally (according to Peter Brotherton) advise him to change his plea to "guilty"? If you think it really was VT on the video screens of the Old Bailey, why then did he plead guilty? The trial has revealed to us that the police had no more of a case against him than they had against the landlord. The jury must have been bewildered, because the prosecuting counsel never even mentioned the motive for the crime that they asserted was murder.
Well, it wasn't me, Leonora, and I don't know whether or not I have an alibi for the weekend in question----I haven't a clue what I was doing!!!
Perhaps a few of the jury were bewildered, I don't know, but I imagine most would have thought that if he had pled guilty, then he'd done it, and therefore it was a pretty easy jury to be on. If you examine all the old fora (Websleuths, Bowland Central, what is left of the Facebook one, and there are a number of others), this is what most people were thinking-----at first, many thought the police had made another mistake, then when he pled guilty, they just "knew" it was him.
Why didn't VT change his legal team? Well,before the trial he did, several times, as far as I recall---or, at least, somebody did it for him. But, some possible reasons:
He could be guilty.
He could be ill, broken down, without hope,and not want to talk to anyone.
He could be dead.
He could be in prison in Holland, and the public hasn't been told.
He may well not understand the criminal justice system in this country, and he may not have access to any help.
I will go for the second possibility, with a bit of the last thrown in. Others will think differently, but no way do I believe that he would be party to any kind of behind the scenes deal if that meant he had to separate from his family, girlfriend and friends. I doubt whether such deals exist anyway.