Poll

Do you have reservations as to Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt as a murderer?

Guilty as Charged
10 (55.6%)
Guilty of Manslaughter not Murder
3 (16.7%)
Think he could be Innocent
3 (16.7%)
He is Innocent
2 (11.1%)

Total Members Voted: 18

Voting closed: April 06, 2017, 02:30:27 PM

Author Topic: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?  (Read 5375 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2017, 02:18:06 PM »
At the police station and for the first three of his preliminary appearances in court, VT was represented by lawyers from Crossman & Co of Radstock and Albion Chambers. The most important thing about this team is that they told the magistrate that he would be applying for bail the next day, only to change their minds the following day at the Crown Court. Why did they do this? The only probable explanation is that the lady from the CPS (who as we know had been planning this for some time) chose her moment to notify VT's lawyers of something that convinced them that bail would not be granted and that their client was therefore guilty.

This is enormously important. I believe that the crying girl ruse was intended to deceive primarily Crossman & Co. You may have other explanations. The CPS may have told VT's lawyers about the 43 injuries to the body (which they would otherwise not have learnt about until their own pathologist examined it later). These had not been made public. They may have alleged that VT attempted to incriminate the landlord, which Crossman & Co wouldn't have known as their client certainly wouldn't have told them.

Did the CPS at this stage reveal to VT's lawyers the contents of CJ's 2nd witness statement, which is STILL to this day a closely guarded secret? Did the CPS at this state reveal what was really talked about during the long, expensive interview at Schiphol, which, again, we can only guess at? Did the CPS reveal that VT already knew Joanna well, as an unattributed press report claimed at the time, though it was never even hinted at in court? The CPS knew that VT would sack his lawyers, and this meant that the new lawyers who took over his defence would not have access to whatever secrets the CPS had revealed to Crossman & Co.

This is all far more important than a naive faith in any so-called confession that anyone who reads what was actually said in court can see for themselves wasn't a confession at all.

Are you disputing that Tabak instructed his Counsel that he would plead to manslaughter because that is relative point here and not what he supposedly did or did not tell a prison chaplin.

As far as the change of mind over bail is concerned there are many reasons why this could have happened, some of which you speculate on above. Vincent Tabak is a foreign national and as he was facing a very serious charge it is quite normal for bail to be denied.  In fact, Tabak was remanded in custody for his own safety initially.

Undoubtedly, the CPS were in discussion with Tabak's lawyers which is quite normal practise. Following those discussions his lawyers decided that bail was unlikely to be granted so never pursued the issue, I see no mystery in what occurred, this is how the criminal justice system works in the UK.

« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 02:27:14 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline mrswah

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Total likes: 371
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2017, 04:24:49 PM »
Looking at the poll, I see that most people who have voted so far believe it was manslaughter.

So, why do you think he approached Joanna at all ?  Do you believe the story he told in court about the "pass gone wrong?"   Do you think Joanna did invite him in to her flat?  Do you think he forced his way in, or was already there , snooping around?  Did he follow her home-----could "trolleyman" in Waitrose have been VT?  (Some people on other fora  have suggested this, although it wasn't mentioned in court.

Does anyone think Vincent and Joanna might have known each other previously?  Again, this has been suggested, but was not established at the trial.

Does anyone believe that he was acting out what he had watched in porn movies?  If so, why choose his next door neighbour?  He was bound to get caught, and surely, he was intelligent enough to realise that!

Does anyone think he was under the influence of drink or drugs at the time?

Does anyone believe he and Jo had consensual sex, and he accidentally strangled her?

I don't believe these scenarios, but I am very interested to know what other posters think.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2017, 04:29:15 PM »
Looking at the poll, I see that most people who have voted so far believe it was manslaughter.

So, why do you think he approached Joanna at all ?  Do you believe the story he told in court about the "pass gone wrong?"   Do you think Joanna did invite him in to her flat?  Do you think he forced his way in, or was already there , snooping around?  Did he follow her home-----could "trolleyman" in Waitrose have been VT?  (Some people on other fora  have suggested this, although it wasn't mentioned in court.

Does anyone think Vincent and Joanna might have known each other previously?  Again, this has been suggested, but was not established at the trial.

Does anyone believe that he was acting out what he had watched in porn movies?  If so, why choose his next door neighbour?  He was bound to get caught, and surely, he was intelligent enough to realise that!

Does anyone think he was under the influence of drink or drugs at the time?

Does anyone believe he and Jo had consensual sex, and he accidentally strangled her?

I don't believe these scenarios, but I am very interested to know what other posters think.

Only Vincent Tabak will know the answer to these questions and its a real pity the opportunity was lost at his trial to clarify them.

Why don't you e-mail him and ask him to clarify these matters?
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline mrswah

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Total likes: 371
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2017, 04:37:30 PM »
Only Vincent Tabak will know the answer to these questions and its a real pity the opportunity was lost at his trial to clarify them.

Why don't you e-mail him and ask him to clarify these matters?

As I have previously said, one needs a prisoner's permission before one can write/e mail them, and also their prison number.  I have applied for both-------and no response (other than the service is very busy, etc etc) has been forthcoming.

Offline mrswah

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Total likes: 371
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2017, 04:49:03 PM »
Only Vincent Tabak will know the answer to these questions and its a real pity the opportunity was lost at his trial to clarify them.

Why don't you e-mail him and ask him to clarify these matters?




I agree---it was a great pity that these issues were not clarified in court, and not only Vincent Tabak could have clarified them.

I dare say his partner would have had some idea as to whether or not he was into kinky sex.

I dare say at least one female friend or colleague could have commented on whether he was the type of man who made unwelcome advances to women, or stalked them.

I dare say somebody could have commented on how much he drank, and whether or not he used cannabis.

Offline blonk

Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2017, 07:06:57 PM »
I'm with pathfinder73 and everyone else who says he should have been found guilty of murder. IIRC there was evidence that in the 24 hours before the killing he had watched a video of the violent rape and killing of a woman, yet another case which shows the baneful influence of watching violence

Offline Nine

Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2017, 07:21:06 PM »
I'm with pathfinder73 and everyone else who says he should have been found guilty of murder. IIRC there was evidence that in the 24 hours before the killing he had watched a video of the violent rape and killing of a woman, yet another case which shows the baneful influence of watching violence

Hi Blonk


There was NO evidence that he had been watching video's of porn or any video's showing a woman being killed.... that's what the media said after the trial..

I believe the Porn was a ruse as to bolster public opinion that they had convicted the right man...  They never produced it in court and personally I do not believe it existed..

The series that the media referred to is called Sex and Submission which people are able to view on adult TV channels...

I believe it was the prosecutions wish to make the public support them in their case, without having the evidence to back it up!!!!!






Offline John

Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2017, 10:20:11 PM »
Was VT asked about this at his trial?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Nine

Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #23 on: March 30, 2017, 10:44:29 PM »
Was VT asked about this at his trial?

No.... anything to do with the pornography wasn't introduced in the trial as evidence and was only released to the media after the trial had finished...

Therefore I cannot see how they sentenced him (I Believe).. as a sexual motivated attack...

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law

There was no proof that it was sexually Motivated and Joanna Yeates had NOT  been sexually assaulted.

Offline mrswah

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Total likes: 371
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2017, 09:36:13 AM »
No.... anything to do with the pornography wasn't introduced in the trial as evidence and was only released to the media after the trial had finished...

Therefore I cannot see how they sentenced him (I Believe).. as a sexual motivated attack...

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law

There was no proof that it was sexually Motivated and Joanna Yeates had NOT  been sexually assaulted.


The jury would have thought it was sexually motivated, as a result of the story VT gave. Personally, I don't think his story was true: I believe it was suggested by his lawyers, and he went along with it, but others believe differently.  Certainly, he can't have killed Joanna in her flat (or in his), as no forensic evidence was found in either flat. However, this was part of his story!

I am a cynic, of course, and I don't think there was a motive, as I don't believe it was VT who killed Joanna. However, this was a young man accused of the murder of a young woman, so , naturally, a sexual motive would go down well as a reasonable explanation.


Offline Leonora

Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2017, 09:46:12 AM »
As far as the change of mind over bail is concerned there are many reasons why this could have happened, some of which you speculate on above.
In his first statement, given to police the same day as he was arrested, 20th January 2011, Vincent Tabak insisted that he did not know Joanna Yeates and that he had never spoken to her nor her boyfriend. “Until her picture was shown prominently in the press I would not have recognised her,” he told the detectives.

The very next day, 21st January 2011, The Sun told a different story:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/324139/weeping-girl-tipped-off-jo-police/

“Tabak knew landscape architect Jo and they worked together on joint schemes for their respective firms, according to a former colleague of his at consultant engineers Buro Happold. They said: ‘They would have met in her office or on location.’”

Who was this mysterious colleague? How did they know that he had denied knowing her during his interrogation at the police station? If Crossman & Co and Albion Chambers had time to read all the newspaper reports on his arrest while all this was going on, did they ask their client about this? Did he deny it? Was it a subsequent tip-off from the CPS suggesting that his statement was untrue that prompted the lawyers to change their minds about bail?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 09:49:17 AM by Leonora »

Offline mrswah

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Total likes: 371
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2017, 10:05:22 AM »
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???

Offline Leonora

Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2017, 12:56:08 PM »
Only Vincent Tabak will know the answer to these questions and its a real pity the opportunity was lost at his trial to clarify them.

Why don't you e-mail him and ask him to clarify these matters?
The first part of your post is very close to something that DCI Phil Jones said in public after the trial. DCI Jones is known for being very economical with the truth. You for one would not believe any answers that Vincent Tabak might give, either under oath or by e-mail, so your post is not worth the paper it is printed on. DCI Jones, on the other hand, is one of those who DOES know the answers to these questions. We know he knows. We know that he is not telling, even though the public has a right to know.

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.

The Fire Service have repeatedly refuse to explain why four fire engines and a substantial crane were summoned to recover Joanna's body, but the jury was not told. The police must know the reason why.

The police also have statements from Joanna's parents, taken within hours of their arriving at the flat, when they later alleged they were already 100% sure she had been abducted. Yet they were not called to testify. The fact is that the police are sitting on a wealth of reliable answers to hitherto unanswered questions for which Vincent Tabak can in no way be held responsible. We WOULD know the truth if the police were willing to tell it.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 01:07:43 PM by Leonora »

Offline Leonora

Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2017, 01:45:18 PM »
Are you disputing that Tabak instructed his Counsel that he would plead to manslaughter because that is relative point here and not what he supposedly did or did not tell a prison chaplin.
I'm not disputing it - I'm insisting that any plea would not have been his decision. It would have been his lawyer's recommendation. Just to clarify facts that we know:

(1) After the prisoner had held conversations with Peter Brotherton in prison, he ceased to be represented by Crossman & Co instructing Albion Chambers, and his case was taken overy by Kelcey & Hall instructing William Clegg Chambers. It seems most probable that it was Vincent Tabak who decided to change his lawyers, though it is just possible that it was his first defence team themselves who recommended the second team.

(2) There is no question but that Peter Brotherton, under oath, told the court that the prisoner had told him in February 2011 about the plea he might be making, and that this plea might be "guilty". At no time did Peter Brotherton actually state that the prisoner had told him that he had killed Joanna. It was Counsel for the Defence who, in a subordinate clause, under cross-examination, used the words "he had killed Joanna".

We know that a lawyer from Crossman & Co or Albion Chambers, who had declined to apply for bail for their client, and therefore believed him to be guilty, visited the prisoner in his cell BEFORE the first conversation with Peter Brotherton. It must have been this lawyer who, for some reason we don't know, advised Vincent Tabak that he plead guilty of manslaughter.

By the time the case came to court, we all heard how meagre the evidence against Vincent Tabak actually was. This didn't matter, as he had "confessed", and went on to recount, at great length, but with little credibility, how he claimed to have committed the crime. Surely it is obvious, however, that in the absence of a "confession", even Albion Chambers could have secured a "not guilty" verdict from the jury? However, unlike the jury, WE KNOW that the confession to the "chaplain" was a very cleverly executed fake. So why did he plead guilty of manslaughter? I am not going to repeat here the dozen or so points of evidence that suggest strongly that his plea too was faked, but I maintain firmly that the real Vincent Tabak never did plead guilty.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 01:54:25 PM by Leonora »

Offline Nine

Re: Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?
« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2017, 02:04:43 PM »
I'm not disputing it - I'm insisting that any plea would not have been his decision. It would have been his lawyer's recommendation. Just to clarify facts that we know:

(1) After the prisoner had held conversations with Peter Brotherton in prison, he ceased to be represented by Crossman & Co instructing Albion Chambers, and his case was taken overy by Kelcey & Hall instructing William Clegg Chambers. It seems most probable that it was Vincent Tabak who decided to change his lawyers, though it is just possible that it was his first defence team themselves who recommended the second team.

(2) There is no question but that Peter Brotherton, under oath, told the court that the prisoner had told him in February 2011 about the plea he might be making, and that this plea might be "guilty". At no time did Peter Brotherton actually state that the prisoner had told him that he had killed Joanna. It was Counsel for the Defence who, in a subordinate clause, under cross-examination, used the words "he had killed Joanna".

We know that a lawyer from Crossman & Co or Albion Chambers, who had declined to apply for bail for their client, and therefore believed him to be guilty, visited the prisoner in his cell BEFORE the first conversation with Peter Brotherton. It must have been this lawyer who, for some reason we don't know, advised Vincent Tabak that he plead guilty of manslaughter.

By the time the case came to court, we all heard how meagre the evidence against Vincent Tabak actually was. This didn't matter, as he had "confessed", and went on to recount, at great length, but with little credibility, how he claimed to have committed the crime. Surely it is obvious, however, that in the absence of a "confession", even Albion Chambers could have secured a "not guilty" verdict from the jury? However, unlike the jury, WE KNOW that the confession to the "chaplain" was a very cleverly executed fake. So why did he plead guilty of manslaughter? I am not going to repeat here the dozen or so points of evidence that suggest strongly that his plea too was faked, but I maintain firmly that the real Vincent Tabak never did plead guilty.

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