Author Topic: The Plea  (Read 1513 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nine of Nine

The Plea
« on: April 05, 2017, 10:53:47 AM »
We are all aware that Dr Vincent Tabak made a Plea at The Old Bailey in May 2011, there are many odd things with this plea and I am not here to hazard a guess as to what and wherefore..

But if you think about it Why have his plea at The Old Bailey when ALL of his other appearances were at Bristol??

It's odd... at the time I didn't think it was odd, because I assumed that the TRIAL itself was going to beheld at The Old Bailey, but as we know it wasn't!!

Everyone believes whole heartedly that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty because of the Plea... it's the one and only piece of evidence that they had, how they obtained it is anyones guess, but I don't like confessions...

I don't like confessions without hard evidence to back it up.... And as far as I am concerned, there is NO evidence in which to back up this confession....

There's a story... thats just what it is.... a story... it does't cover nearly anything in this case.... They make suggestions on how bit's of evidence may have ended up in certain places, but not really... I'll give you an example...

Dr Vincent Tabak says, he put Joanna Yeates on her bed...well she needs to have been near her bed at some point, because an earring was found there...

That doesn't explain the earring properly... One of the Earring was inside the bed duvet, well that couldn't have happened if Dr Vincent Tabak had just put her on the bed... Don't forget they have time constraints so he wouldn't have been in the flat that long.. and if a fight.. attack took place there, when did he say he made the bed????

Which brings me to another point the defence should have asked Greg Reardon or was it her father......

 What clothes did they pick up from the floor of the bedroom to find the OTHER EARRING?????  Was it the clothes she wore to the RAM???????
Because to me , that suggest that it came off as she removed her own clothes!

Always questions...

Anyway back to the plea... It's holier than a sieve, it's there just to satisfy, yet it doesn't, because most of the public still had questions they wanted answering after the trial had finished...

I started this thread so people can add information to show how people falsley confess and also for the plea itself to be scrutinized...because I think it need it!!!!!!


28

Offline Nine of Nine

Re: The Plea
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2017, 11:26:04 AM »
I'll refer to "The West Memphis Three case"....

A confession there, was what put 3 young men in prison for life and it was the evidence that was found that the confession was proven to be false..

I believe that there is EVIDENCE to prove that The Plea that Dr Vincent Tabak made was WRONG and if you want to call it a Confession I believe it to be FALSE!!

Offline Nine of Nine

Re: The Plea
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2017, 12:38:16 PM »
I think we need to work backwards to get to this confession.... bring all the other evidence in first to create the doubt that the confession/plea is TRUE!!!!

Offline Leonora

Re: The Plea
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2017, 08:35:49 PM »
...
But if you think about it Why have his plea at The Old Bailey when ALL of his other appearances were at Bristol??

It's odd... at the time I didn't think it was odd, because I assumed that the TRIAL itself was going to be held at The Old Bailey, but as we know it wasn't!!
...
The first two preliminary Crown Court hearings were held in Bristol before Judge Colman Treacy, who, at the second hearing (at the end of January 2011) pencilled in his calendar the dates of the plea hearing (4th May) and the trial, which were both to be heard "in this Court". This was reported in the news media. The plea hearing was put back, however, to 5th May, and its venue moved to the Old Bailey.

I believe that only those whom the CPS wanted to attend the plea hearing (including the news media) were notified of the change, and that the hearing was moved for this very reason. There is a lot of evidence to support this, which I have listed before, including the change of judge, the change of QCs, and who was and who was not in court for the plea.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2017, 09:34:56 PM by John »

Offline Leonora

Re: The Plea
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2017, 09:02:49 PM »
I'll refer to "The West Memphis Three case"....

A confession there, was what put 3 young men in prison for life and it was the evidence that was found that the confession was proven to be false..

I believe that there is EVIDENCE to prove that The Plea that Dr Vincent Tabak made was WRONG and if you want to call it a Confession I believe it to be FALSE!!
I don't know about any West Memphis Three, but false confessions by young men in police stations are daily occurrences - especially long ago or in other countries less civilised than this one. Amanda Knox's "confession", on the other hand, must be one of the more notorious and bizarre police station confessions. It was eventually discredited, not least because she and her boyfriend were questioned as suspects (without any tape or video recorders) even though they believed they were being interviewed as witnesses, and they were refused access to lawyers until after they had been remanded by the magistrate.

The first person publicly to link the Amanda Knox prosecution to that of Vincent Tabak was the Chief Constable of Bristol. However, the plea that Dr Vincent Tabak made was not actually made by him!

Offline John

Re: The Plea
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2017, 09:38:04 PM »
You're way out on a limb on this one.  Vincent Tabak confessed to killing Joanna and provided police with more than enough evidence of what went on that evening to be assured that he was telling the truth.

Tabak never changed his story throughout the trial process and stands by his confession.  There is absolutely nothing you have provided which can change that situation Leonora.

Suggesting that it wasn't the real Vincent Tabak who appeared at a pre trial hearing simply undermines you're credibility.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2017, 02:04:22 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

  • Senior Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
  • Total likes: 433
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Plea
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2017, 10:34:34 PM »
You're way out on a limb on this one.  Vincent Tabak confessed to killing Joanna and provided police with more than enough evidence of what went on that evening to be assured that he was telling the truth.

Tabak never changed his story throughout the trial process and stands by his confession.  There is absolutely nothing you have provided which can change that situation Leonora.

Suggesting that it wasn't the real Vincent Tabak who appeared at a pre trial hearing simply undermines you're credibility.

While I don't believe  any impostor took the place of Vincent Tabak, I am not sure he told the truth either. He said that he had killed Joanna in her flat, and then moved her body to his. So, where was the forensic evidence?
He said he turned off Joanna's oven and television-----so where were his fingerprints?
And, we never heard about any forensic evidence being on that front door that he appeared so interested in.

Offline Leonora

Re: The Plea
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2017, 11:54:59 AM »
You're way out on a limb on this one.  Vincent Tabak confessed to killing Joanna and provided police with more than enough evidence of what went on that evening to be assured that he was telling the truth.

Tabak never changed his story throughout the trial process and stands by his confession.  There is absolutely nothing you have provided which can change that situation Leonora.

Suggesting that it wasn't the real Vincent Tabak who appeared at a pre trial hearing simply undermines you're credibility.
There was therefore no reason, at the time when his plea was entered, why Vincent Tabak should have made that plea. You have already rejected any suggested that he might have been tortured into pleading guilty, and in any case there would have been no need to move the plea hearing to the Old Bailey and change its date if a false plea were going to be obtained by such methods.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2017, 02:05:39 PM by John »

Online Angelo222

Re: The Plea
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2017, 12:16:35 PM »
There was therefore no reason, at the time when his plea was entered, why Vincent Tabak should have made that plea. You have already rejected any suggested that he might have been tortured into pleading guilty, and in any case there would have been no need to move the plea hearing to the Old Bailey and change its date if a false plea were going to be obtained by such methods.

Vincent Tabak pled guilty because he was guilty so what concept of that don't you understand Leonora?

The guy made a grievous error and panicked but was man enough to admit to it in the end instead of attempting to wriggle out of it.  For that at least he deserves some credit.  All you are doing is undermining his sincerity. In a moment of madness he destroyed both Joanna's life and his own, at least he should be free some day unlike his victim.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2017, 02:05:54 PM by John »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Leonora

Re: The Plea
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2017, 12:20:56 PM »
While I don't believe  any impostor took the place of Vincent Tabak, I am not sure he told the truth either. He said that he had killed Joanna in her flat, and then moved her body to his. So, where was the forensic evidence?
He said he turned off Joanna's oven and television-----so where were his fingerprints?
And, we never heard about any forensic evidence being on that front door that he appeared so interested in.
The absence of forensic evidence from the flat, like the absence of testimony from Chris Jefferies, Tanja Morson and Shrikant Sharma, is a very important pointer to the falseness of this prosecution. However, evidence which isn't there cannot really tell us how that guilty plea came to be entered at the Old Bailey.

I used to speculate that the CPS might have told Paul Cook QC, "We have evidence of your client's DNA and fingerprints in Joanna's flat", in order to persuade him to abandon the bail application and advise Vincent Tabak to plead guilty of manslaughter. However, not so long ago I learnt that police are forbidden to elicit a confession by making false claims about the evidence they have. (There was such a case in New York a couple of years ago, when I young Danish kindergarten employee was deceived during interrogation into believing that police had CCTV showing him behaving inappropriately towards a child.)

Vincent Tabak entered a plea which you, mrswah, believe he shouldn't have made, as it was you who listed the main weaknesses of his conviction when you first started this discussion. So how do you explain how this plea came about? Surely it wouldn't have been necessary to force poor Mr. & Mrs Yeates, their police liaison officer Emma Davies, DCI Phil Jones, and Nigel Lickley QC, to travel from SW England to London to hear the real Vincent Tabak plead at the Old Bailey, if he had merely been hypnotised into pleading guilty?

Online Angelo222

Re: The Plea
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2017, 12:24:09 PM »
Really?  Hypnotism now??  That really is sad Leonora.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Leonora

Re: The Plea
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2017, 12:37:03 PM »
Vincent Tabak pled guilty because he was guilty so what concept of that don't you understand Leonora?

The guy made a grievous error and panicked but was man enough to admit to it in the end instead of attempting to wriggle out of it.  For that at least he deserves some credit.  All you are doing is undermining his sincerity. In a moment of madness he destroyed both Joanna's life and his own, at least he should be free some day unlike his victim.
Can you please drop the "broken record" Angelo222 and stop casting aspersions on my understanding? The only evidence that Joanna's killing occurred in her own flat, rather than elsewhere, and that she died at a time when he had no alibi, rather than later, when he did have an alibi, comes from his own testimony and his own "enhanced statement", which his own lawyers drew up and which he signed 4 months after he entered his plea. How else could his lawyer talk him into making a guilty plea that the CPS would not have been able to prove in court, unless they were all agreed on providing Jo's parents with a scapegoat and Vincent Tabak with a secret amnesty and a new identity?


Offline Nine of Nine

Re: The Plea
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2017, 12:39:51 PM »
Can you please drop the "broken record" Angelo222 and stop casting aspersions on my understanding? The only evidence that Joanna's killing occurred in her own flat, rather than elsewhere, and that she died at a time when he had no alibi, rather than later, when he did have an alibi, comes from his own testimony and his own "enhanced statement", which his own lawyers drew up and which he signed 4 months after he entered his plea. How else could his lawyer talk him into making a guilty plea that the CPS would not have been able to prove in court, unless they were all agreed on providing Jo's parents with a scapegoat and Vincent Tabak with a secret amnesty and a new identity?

People plead guilty to things they haven't done.. in the vain hope that the evidence if presented properly WILL show that they are Innocent of these Claims and Pleas...

Offline John

Re: The Plea
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2017, 12:43:41 PM »
People plead guilty to things they haven't done.. in the vain hope that the evidence if presented properly WILL show that they are Innocent of these Claims and Pleas...

You've lost me completely now, no sane person pleads guilty to murder if he or she is innocent.

In any event, a reminder to all.  Let's keep the debate constructive guys and look at the evidence of what took place rather than what some surmise occurred. TY
« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 12:45:44 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.