Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest > The murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol in December 2010.
Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates
mrswah:
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.
Any comments?????
1487
Holly Goodhead:
--- Quote from: mrswah on September 10, 2016, 01:22:37 AM ---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.
Any comments?????
--- End quote ---
I was surprised when he was charged and subsequently found guilty as he seemed a most unlikely suspect but as far as I can see he's guilty as charged.
Personally I think his mind was corrupted by a certain type of porn. There was also evidence he used the services of escorts.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/vincent-tabak-porn-searches-jury
mrswah:
Thanks for your response, Holly.
Much was made of the porn on Tabak's computer, and someone from the States even accused Tabak of trying to strangle her during sex (this was reported in one of the tabloids). So, why didn't a police officer interview her ? Why didn't Tabak's girlfriend appear in court, as she would, surely, have had some idea as to whether or not her partner was into kinky and dangerous sex. Lots of people have porn on their computers, and many use escorts, pay for phone sex, etc, but this is not illegal, and it doesn't make somebody a killer.
As for the later appearance in court relating to the possession of child porn, I wonder why they bothered prosecuting. After all, even if they put Tabak on the sex offenders' register for ten years, he will be in prison for the next ten years anyway, and is, therefore, in no position to work with children, or harm them . (Incidentally, he had no previous criminal record either here, or in Holland , of any kind of sex crime). I wonder if there was another reason, for instance, would this additional conviction make it harder (or impossible) for him to appeal???
Not sure that porn (or anything else) on somebody's computer is actually good evidence: it can be planted, and did the jury actually get to see it?? It seems to me that the police and the CPS were DESPERATE to get a conviction, having messed things up so badly over the arrest of Christopher Jefferies. It would not have been difficult to convince the jury, as everybody was absolutely appalled at what happened to Joanna Yeates.
Holly Goodhead:
--- Quote from: mrswah on September 10, 2016, 01:42:39 PM ---Thanks for your response, Holly.
Much was made of the porn on Tabak's computer, and someone from the States even accused Tabak of trying to strangle her during sex (this was reported in one of the tabloids). So, why didn't a police officer interview her ? Why didn't Tabak's girlfriend appear in court, as she would, surely, have had some idea as to whether or not her partner was into kinky and dangerous sex. Lots of people have porn on their computers, and many use escorts, pay for phone sex, etc, but this is not illegal, and it doesn't make somebody a killer.
As for the later appearance in court relating to the possession of child porn, I wonder why they bothered prosecuting. After all, even if they put Tabak on the sex offenders' register for ten years, he will be in prison for the next ten years anyway, and is, therefore, in no position to work with children, or harm them . (Incidentally, he had no previous criminal record either here, or in Holland , of any kind of sex crime). I wonder if there was another reason, for instance, would this additional conviction make it harder (or impossible) for him to appeal???
Not sure that porn (or anything else) on somebody's computer is actually good evidence: it can be planted, and did the jury actually get to see it?? It seems to me that the police and the CPS were DESPERATE to get a conviction, having messed things up so badly over the arrest of Christopher Jefferies. It would not have been difficult to convince the jury, as everybody was absolutely appalled at what happened to Joanna Yeates.
--- End quote ---
Yes I agree the fact he watched porn and possibly used the services of an escort doesn't in itself point to his guilt. In any event the jury didn't hear any of this.
I think men often use these services because their partners are not into whatever they are or they feel they can't ask. So TM may have been in the dark about his sexual preferences.
I thought his DNA was found somewhere on JY's body or clothing?
Is he protesting innocence or trying to appeal his sentence in some way?
The verdict was a 10-2 majority. I had look this up and was quite surprised as I did expect to find a unanimous verdict. From what I read at the time I thought the case against him was very strong.
I think people struggle to comprehend a well educated, well turned out man like VT carrying out such a crime. CJ on the other hand, whilst also well educted, looked a bit unkempt and perhaps people just found it easier to pin the blame on him? As evidenced by the way the press went to war on him? I think people feel safe when the perps of serious crime look or act a bit different.
VT claimed the attack was not sexually motivated and that he put his hands around JY's neck as she screamed. Sounds remarkably like the case of Ian Huntley (Soham Murders) in this regard.
mrswah I think there's little doubt VT is guilty. I can't see any evidence of anything amiss here at all? VT has even confessed. He comes from a stable middle class family. If they felt there was anything amiss I am sure they would be pursuing this?
mrswah:
They did find DNA, but had to have it "enhanced", and I believe the police believed that, on its own, it was not enough to get him convicted.
I , too, have wondered why his family have not made any fuss about his conviction. Do they believe him guilty, or have they been told to keep quiet, in order not to reduce his chances of being able to serve out part of his sentence in Holland?
I also find it strange that nobody has written a book about this case: normally, somebody does, after such a high profile case.
Of course, I might be wrong, and he is guilty. It is just that this case "niggles" me, whereas many murder cases don't.
Thanks for commenting, anyway. I am hoping that other people on this forum will.
As for Jefferies, I strongly suspect that , somehow, he would have been "found guilty" had they not arrested Tabak, not just because he "looked weird", but because he had keys to all the flats. The media (and people on forums) were very damning of him at the time---falsely, of course.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version