Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?

[Leonora]

Mr Clegg's behaviour in court, both when he opened his mouth, and when he was silent, and the obvious witnesses whom he neglected to call, has to be without precedent in the history of criminal justice. He has already been subject to intense scrutiny on another thread, so I will focus on just one other aspect of his defence. He repeatedly disparaged his own client with a succession of remarks such as, "I do not ask you to like my client" and "We would not win a popularity contest".

He was supposed to be defending Vincent Tabak on a charge of manslaughter. He was claiming that his client had killed Joanna Yeates by accident, and in a panic had disposed of her body in the hope it would never be found. Not only was it unnecessary to voice sentiments that made him sound as if he were Counsel for the Prosecution - he was making allegations unsupported by witness testimony. No witnesses at all had been called to testify to the defendant's character, either by the Prosecution or by the Defence. They were conspicuous by their absence.

He would have had no difficulty in calling both Dutch and English witnesses to his client's good character, since Vincent Tabak had been head-hunted to the UK on the basis of his PhD, which can be read online and includes a very sympathetic preface that was never even alluded to in court. The prosecution never produced any witnesses to testify to any prior episodes such as harassment of women or violent behaviour.

Prior to the end of the trial, the only person to have said anything about Vincent Tabak's character in connection with the case was Prosecutor Ann Reddrop at her first public appearance. She told the Magistrate that Vincent Tabak  had a record of good character, both in the Netherlands and the UK.

One of the judge's concrete responsibilities is to stop either Counsel if they produce allegations that aren't supported by testimony from a witness under oath. Yet Mr Justice Field was silent when Counsel for the Defence cast these unsupported aspersions on his own client.

You do not need any more proof than this that Mr Clegg and Mr Field were in wilful collusion with the Prosecution. Need I add how serious that is?

[Leonora]

Another very important and dubious prosecution witness needs to be included in this résumé, namely Detective Constable Karen Thomas, the officer who travelled to Schiphol to interview Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson on the day after Christopher Jefferies was arrested. She is important because she asserted in court that Vincent Tabak first became a suspect during that interview (though Anne Reddrop's statement outside the court casts doubt on this), and because she took the DNA sample that it would be alleged matched DNA on Joanna's body.

There are numerous problems and discrepancies surrounding this witness and her testimony. They have been discussed elsewhere, in depth, on this forum. What concerns us here is that the reason she gave for summoning the couple to Schiphol was their claim that the landlord had moved his car in the night - a matter that could have been settled over the telephone, and would in any event scarcely have occupied more than a few minutes of their conversation. Yet the court was told that the interview lasted 6 hours and that the notes taken occupied 40 pages of DC Thomas's notebook.

Neither Defence barrister William Clegg QC, nor the judge, questioned this witness to find out what had been discussed for the greater part of the 6 hours. They too are therefore implicated in keeping from the jury something that has to be of great significance.

Prosecutor Anne Reddrop was head of the complex case unit at the CPS, and this can mean only that this case actually involved multiple suspects and multiple victims, and/or the arrest of a suspect in another jurisdiction. 6 hours is the limit for holding a suspect without charge in the Netherlands, so it is probable that Karen Thomas actually had a court order to hold Vincent Tabak, even though she told the jury that he volunteered to take part.

The jury was never told that it was a complex case. Whatever the whole truth is, there is no doubt whatsoever that DC Karen Thomas failed to tell it when she was in the witness box, and that it would be seriously prejudicial not just to herself but to the entire conviction.

[mrswah]

Yes, as Leonora and others have pointed out, there was a lot amiss with the trial, and with the case against VT.

I know this does not necessarily mean that Vincent Tabak is innocent, but it certainly makes me suspect that he is.

But, people see this in different ways. When, for example, I point out that no forensics were found in the flat that pointed to VT having been in there, I'm told that he must have cleaned up thoroughly.

When I point out that so much fire and rescue equipment was used to retrieve Joanna's body that it is doubtful that she could have been found on a verge, people just tell me that it was all needed because the body was frozen.

When I point out that timestamps were missing from the various  CCTVs that showed VT, some people do not seem to think this is suspicious.

When I point out that VT's defence counsel didn't seem to be defending him, lots of people don't bat an eyelid. After all, he WAS "disgusting", was he not?  Well, yes, if he really did kill Joanna, he was, but that isn't what a defence counsel should be saying.

Most people believe in low copy DNA as reliable evidence, yet it's quite easy to find articles saying that it's not.

Most people believe in VT's so-called "confession", and don't believe that he was anything but sane when he made it (if indeed he did make it). Yet, false memory syndrome and duress are recognised phenomena, and we have no idea how VT was treated in custody.

Most people think it's fine that only one witness testified for the defence, and also that the majority of witnesses for both sides did not appear in court in person.

Most people seem to think that a priest who saw someone who might have been Jo, is a reliable witness (it is very unlikely that he knew her).

Most people seem to think the screams heard on the night of Friday 17th December must have come from Jo, although there were parties going on in the area.

Most people believe everything they read in the newspapers--------this is a major problem, and it caused immense problems for Christopher Jefferies, remember.

Most people don't think it suspicious that VT had no "previous", but that he, apparently decided to murder his next door neighbour after a hard day at work, just because both of them were on their own in their flats!

Most people appear to blindly believe in what they are told re the content of people's computers-----if the media say it's true, then it must be!!

Most people are not suspicious   about the fact that nobody ever talks-----not the media,not people who knew VT, and who must have some idea whether or not he is the sort of person who behaves oddly towards women. People must have some idea about this. Even I had some idea who my "dodgy" colleagues were, and whom to steer clear of!

Nobody ever comes onto this forum and says that they knew VT, are not surprised that he murdered Jo, and that we are all wasting our time. Why not?  They can do so anonymously.
 
So, all my suspicions add up!!!     Just my opinion, of course----------

[mrswah]

And, just to add:

Does nobody think it just a little bit convenient that VT's story was very similar to the scenario put forward in the Mirror on 21st January (cited elsewhere on the forum) ?

Does nobody think it just a little bit convenient that VT was arrested just before a review of the investigation was due?

Well, some of us on here do---but do the majority of the general public?

[mrswah]

And, just to reiterate------no, I am not 100% sure that he is innocent. I couldn't possibly be, because I doubt whether the public was ever given all the information,  and anyway, I have never met VT.

I sure am suspicious though----for all the reasons stated above.

[Leonora]

Yes, as Leonora and others have pointed out, there was a lot amiss with the trial, and with the case against VT.
...

Yes, mrswah, there was a lot amiss with the trial, but the testimony of Peter Brotherton and his cross-examination by William Clegg QC ALONE prove conclusively that it was a PHONEY trial. Not an "unfair" trial, but a phoney one. This means that no one in their right mind on this forum can question Vincent Tabak's innocence, although there remains a remote possibility that he did kill Joanna, under circumstances so entirely different from those we have been told, that they can be discounted.

Therefore I do not need you to list all these other matters, important though they are, nor the reactions of people who, for reasons known only to themselves, have not yet grasped the solid fact that the trial was held to deceive and mislead us. I need to post about the landlord, because he forms a trilogy with Peter Brotherton and Karen Thomas, and you have forcefully diverted attention from the importance of this trilogy.

[mrswah]

I wasn't intentionally "forcefully diverting" attention from anything! 

I was merely woken up too early, by the dog, and felt like "saying my piece"!!!

[Leonora]

DC Karen Thomas told the court that Vincent Tabak had attempted to incriminate Christopher Jefferies by claiming that the landlord's car had been moved during the night. The judge took her word for this in his sentencing. This implies that she knew that the landlord had not moved his car. Counsel for the Defence William Clegg QC was therefore obliged to call Mr Jefferies as a witness, to cross-examine him as to whether or not he had moved his car. However, as is well known, Mr Jefferies was not called as a witness, and his absence from the court adds to the serious doubts already cast on the integrity of the DC, the barristers and the judge.

It is a small point, but the landlord is a central character in this case because of his 2nd witness statement. The importance of this statement lies in its timing and the fact that it has NEVER been made public, despite the enormous public attention that is still being accorded to Christopher Jefferies. Therefore, this statement MUST contain something which both he and the police are determined to hide.

The 2nd witness statement arose in response to the first public appeal by Detective Superintendant Mark Saunders, Joanna's parents, and Greg Reardon. Therefore Christopher Jefferies MUST have seen something or someone that contradicted something he heard in the public appeal.

All we know with certainty about the contents of this statement is that Christopher Jefferies told the police that he saw and heard two or three persons on Joanna's front path just after 9 p.m. on the evening in question or another evening. We do not know whether or not he identified the persons, nor whether it included other evidence as well.

What we do know with 100% certainty is that the police never appealed for these persons to come forward. Obviously, these persons had to be very important witnesses, whichever evening they were on Joanna's front path. Therefore we can be equally sure that both the police and Mr Jefferies are guilty of keeping important facts back which the jury should have heard.

We know that Mr Jefferies told other people about what and whom he saw and heard, and these other people must have included Vincent Tabak and Tanja. Therefore it is almost certain that the major part of the Schiphol interview was taken up with the discrepancies between what the landlord told his tenants, and what he angrily told Sky News when he was doorstepped the day before his arrest. This probably included not just persons, but evidence of activity in Joanna's flat, such as lights being switched on and off, during the Saturday and Sunday when she was supposed to be dead.

We can therefore be almost 100% confident that the arrest, bail and silence of Christopher Jefferies was a build-up to the phoney trial that Anne Reddrop was already planning for Vincent Tabak

[[...]]

DC Karen Thomas told the court that Vincent Tabak had attempted to incriminate Christopher Jefferies by claiming that the landlord's car had been moved during the night. The judge took her word for this in his sentencing. This implies that she knew that the landlord had not moved his car. Counsel for the Defence William Clegg QC was therefore obliged to call Mr Jefferies as a witness, to cross-examine him as to whether or not he had moved his car. However, as is well known, Mr Jefferies was not called as a witness, and his absence from the court adds to the serious doubts already cast on the integrity of the DC, the barristers and the judge.

It is a small point, but the landlord is a central character in this case because of his 2nd witness statement. The importance of this statement lies in its timing and the fact that it has NEVER been made public, despite the enormous public attention that is still being accorded to Christopher Jefferies. Therefore, this statement MUST contain something which both he and the police are determined to hide.

The 2nd witness statement arose in response to the first public appeal by Detective Superintendant Mark Saunders, Joanna's parents, and Greg Reardon. Therefore Christopher Jefferies MUST have seen something or someone that contradicted something he heard in the public appeal.

All we know with certainty about the contents of this statement is that Christopher Jefferies told the police that he saw and heard two or three persons on Joanna's front path just after 9 p.m. on the evening in question or another evening. We do not know whether or not he identified the persons, nor whether it included other evidence as well.

What we do know with 100% certainty is that the police never appealed for these persons to come forward. Obviously, these persons had to be very important witnesses, whichever evening they were on Joanna's front path. Therefore we can be equally sure that both the police and Mr Jefferies are guilty of keeping important facts back which the jury should have heard.

We know that Mr Jefferies told other people about what and whom he saw and heard, and these other people must have included Vincent Tabak and Tanja. Therefore it is almost certain that the major part of the Schiphol interview was taken up with the discrepancies between what the landlord told his tenants, and what he angrily told Sky News when he was doorstepped the day before his arrest. This probably included not just persons, but evidence of activity in Joanna's flat, such as lights being switched on and off, during the Saturday and Sunday when she was supposed to be dead.

We can therefore be almost 100% confident that the arrest, bail and silence of Christopher Jefferies was a build-up to the phoney trial that Anne Reddrop was already planning for Vincent Tabak

Indeed leonora..

What did they need to keep Dr Vincent Tabak quiet for???  what did he know???? What indeed did CJ tell him and Tanja...

Is this the real reason that Tanja Morson didn't appear in court as a witness for her boyfriend???

[Leonora]

Peter Brotherton, DC Karen Thomas and Christopher Jefferies each has crucial knowledge about this case that has deliberately been kept secret. Each of them could be summoned as a witness in any new court hearing resulting from or connected with the murder of Joanna Yeates.

As I explained, Peter Brotherton has already protected himself against accusations of perjury in the event of any new court hearings, though it is possible that the statement he is alleged to have made to the prison authorities never existed. It is also possible that DC Karen Thomas's notebook has been "lost". However, we can be certain that Christopher Jefferies and his lawyers have copies of his 2nd witness statement in safe keeping.

Absolutely everyone associated with this case has been compromised by the extent of the corruption needed to carry out such a phoney trial. This includes the press and the Leveson Inquiry. There are even grounds to suspect "noble cause corruption", but that discussion belongs elsewhere.

My purpose is to demonstrate to anyone prepared to read my recent posts on this thread is that anyone who was charged with libelling any of these compromised persons would have the opportunity, in their defence, to compel Peter Brotherton, DC Karen Thomas and Christopher Jefferies to reveal what they have been hiding. It is obvious that the testimony of any one of these alone, in a libel trial in a public court of law, would be sufficient to demolish the conviction of Vincent Tabak. That is not going to happen.

Therefore, neither we posters, the moderators, nor the administrators of this forum, are at any risk from a fair, open and objective public discussion of the roles of any of the other parties to this case. It is important that the moderators understand this, and that they henceforth refrain from censoring legitimate posts that do not pose any risk of libel action, as they have previously been inclined to do.

[[...]]

Peter Brotherton, DC Karen Thomas and Christopher Jefferies each has crucial knowledge about this case that has deliberately been kept secret. Each of them could be summoned as a witness in any new court hearing resulting from or connected with the murder of Joanna Yeates.

As I explained, Peter Brotherton has already protected himself against accusations of perjury in the event of any new court hearings, though it is possible that the statement he is alleged to have made to the prison authorities never existed. It is also possible that DC Karen Thomas's notebook has been "lost". However, we can be certain that Christopher Jefferies and his lawyers have copies of his 2nd witness statement in safe keeping.

Absolutely everyone associated with this case has been compromised by the extent of the corruption needed to carry out such a phoney trial. This includes the press and the Leveson Inquiry. There are even grounds to suspect "noble cause corruption", but that discussion belongs elsewhere.

My purpose is to demonstrate to anyone prepared to read my recent posts on this thread is that anyone who was charged with libelling any of these compromised persons would have the opportunity, in their defence, to compel Peter Brotherton, DC Karen Thomas and Christopher Jefferies to reveal what they have been hiding. It is obvious that the testimony of any one of these alone, in a libel trial in a public court of law, would be sufficient to demolish the conviction of Vincent Tabak. That is not going to happen.

Therefore, neither we posters, the moderators, nor the administrators of this forum, are at any risk from a fair, open and objective public discussion of the roles of any of the other parties to this case. It is important that the moderators understand this, and that they henceforth refrain from censoring legitimate posts that do not pose any risk of libel action, as they have previously been inclined to do.

Wow leonora... I am naive as the day is long......  I didn't actually know they did training for this:

Noble Cause Corruption and Training
Noble cause corruption is a teleological (ends-oriented) approach to an ethical dilemma that says law enforcement professionals will utilize unethical, and sometimes illegal, means to obtain a desired result.

I know you said it needs to be discussed elsewhere, maybe you could start a new thread on this topic.... I believe it is very much warranted!

Updating Ethics Training—Policing Privacy Series: Noble Cause Corruption and Police Discretion

Much has been written about the proper execution of police discretion, values, and the decision-making processes associated with crime fighting. Because policing is such a unique profession, wherein street-level supervision is limited, much emphasis is placed on the personal and professional integrity of the men and the women tasked with policing neighborhoods. Furthermore, there has been a much-heralded training emphasis in the last decade regarding the ethical dilemmas officers face on a daily basis. Police ethics training is not novel in its conceptual application, but it must continue to evolve as policing continues to evolve. Contradictions in training, at times, regarding whose values are to be enforced through the application of governmental authority, must be organizationally clarified. This confusion, and failure at times, comes from a misapplication of the police mission and the police values and a misunderstanding of privacy expectations. Misapplications in training and supervision create a street-level environment rife with cutting corners, unethical rationalizations, and liability.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/updating-ethics-trainingpolicing-privacy-series-noble-cause-corruption-and-police-discretion/

https://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/2003646-Noble-cause-corruption-Do-the-ends-justify-the-means/

[Leonora]

Wow leonora... I am naive as the day is long......  I didn't actually know they did training for this:

I know you said it needs to be discussed elsewhere, maybe you could start a new thread on this topic.... I believe it is very much warranted!

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/updating-ethics-trainingpolicing-privacy-series-noble-cause-corruption-and-police-discretion/

https://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/2003646-Noble-cause-corruption-Do-the-ends-justify-the-means/

It is much more important to start a thread about Joanna's boyfriend - Why the press and the general public were so convinced that he was implicated, and why the police were so quick to leap to his defence, and then to ignore him. We need to we able to do this in the confident knowledge that he is not going to haul us into court.

[[...]]

It is much more important to start a thread about Joanna's boyfriend - Why the press and the general public were so convinced that he was implicated, and why the police were so quick to leap to his defence, and then to ignore him. We need to we able to do this in the confident knowledge that he is not going to haul us into court.

Just discovered something...  Who had access to Avon and Somerset Computer bases????

Was just reading this article and it appears that there were weakness's in it's IBM systems...   

“SAP was built on the cheap by IBM to serve three different customers – the County Council, Taunton Deane district council and the Police. It would have made sense to bung in a few partitions to stop council eyes taking a peek at police matters, or vice versa. But that would have cost money – perish the thought.”   

Officials black out IT security report after it’s published in full
Posted on February 5, 2014 | 1 comment

In one of the most bizarre regressions since the FOI Act came into force in 2005, officials at Somerset County Council have redacted an audit report on SAP security weaknesses after the report was published in full.

Would Dr Vincent Tabak's  ever be in a position to access these files????


Where they actually after something else on Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop????

https://ukcampaign4change.com/category/public-private-partnerships/page/2/


You can read the report here:...

SAP Access to Sensitive Tables SM30/SM31
The organisation has 22 users with access to sensitive table data
editing transactions SM30 and SM31. A review of the
organisations that these individuals work for identified a mixture of
IBM, Somerset County Council, Taunton Deane Borough Council,
Avon & Somerset Police and EPIUSE. All have been seconded to
SW One, with the exception of IBM and the EPIUSE user. Access
in all cases was authorised by SW One.
Access to these transactions under certain conditions can allow
customised data tables to be edited directly, potentially resulting in
unauthorised entries or database integrity problems.

So who actually had access to Avon and Somersets data base ?????

http://www.liddellgrainger.org.uk/images/DOCUMENTS/Grant_Thornton_Report.pdf

Edit.......

Did Buro Happold have access to IBM systems within it's framework of Building Design???

Technology companies such as
Living PlanIT, IBM, Siemens, Cisco and others
have developed a series of products aimed at
creating ‘operating systems’ that allow cities to
control their utility and transportation networks
in real time through the deployment of sensors
that collect data and to feed into an overarching
control system.

https://www.burohappold.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/BH-Planning-smarter-cities.pdf


Is it possible that Dr Vincent Tabak stumbled across Avon and Somerset Police's Data base ????

And if so did he change something within it???

Would that then be classed as a "Complex Crime"???

Is that the reason the trial is made up of only the Searches???

Did Dr Vincent Tabak search Avon and Sommerset's Police data base????

I'm sure they'd be able to find out who had accessed it!

Double Edit...  If that was the case I can completely see why Buro Happold would distance themselves from Dr Vincent Tabak.... with such a breach!... Their reputation would be in tatters....(IMO)...

[[...]]

My above post may seem a ridiculous idea, but thinking about it... It has potential...

(1): What Information on the data base related to any Dutch Inquiries???

(2): Buro Happold would want their reputation kept

(3): What Investigations could be seen??

(4): What budgets could be seen

(5): Would someone be able to access everything??  Emails.. memo's.. All Operational databases??

For Dr Vincent Tabak to be on the Polices radar immediately  without any prior history... he had to be involved in something significant....

Did he know Joanna Yeates.... In the begining everyone said he did.... Now I am questioning the same possibility again....

Edit.......   You could understand why The Head of The Complex crime Unit might get invovled if this was the case.... as i am sure plenty of their communications would also be on the data base....

to quote leonora

There are even grounds to suspect "noble cause corruption", but that discussion belongs elsewhere.

Would this possible revelation be grounds for Noble Cause Corruption????

What impact would it have on Convictions and Cases if it were known that somebody had accessed 'The Avon and Somerset' Police's Data Base????

Double Edit...

I'm going to run with this a little more... 

If Dr Vincent Tabak was Aspergers (which has been suggested before)...  that could explain him delving into something out of curiosity....

With NO MEDICAL ASSESSMENT... being brought before the court of Dr Vincent Tabak, maybe that condition would have surfaced.....

So I will ask again... Did Dr Vincent Tabak access Avon and Somerset Police's Data Base ????

Because if he did... That would be Catastrophic !!! (IMO)!!


Just another little edit.......  That also would make sense why all of the other Police forces were involved in this case.... Didn't Avon and Somerset Police sign a  Cooperation agreement with other Forces ... I'm sure i posted on this matter... There agreement was signed in early December 2010!!!

Where other Police Forces compromised?????

[[...]]

I know we shouldn't speculate.... But Dr Vincent Tabak was a man of Good character, before this whole case....

And out of nowhere he is the Prime Suspect, in a Murder Investigation....  There has to be something significant for the Full Force of all of those Law enforcement Agencies being involved....

Not only that.. The Head of The Complex Crime Unit.. herself

The Prosecution

The Defence and The Judge, for them all to want Dr Vincent Tabak put away for a very long time ...... Without any Evidence whatsoever..... (IMO)...

Question.... Is this the reason that Dr Vincent Tabak appeared in Court Room 2 of The Old Bailey ??

A special court room made for terrorists and such cases ?????

Edit..... There has to be something that connects them all.... Even Buro Happold..... (IMO)...

Could it be classed as a National Security Breach????