Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?

[[...]]

As time has passed in relation to this terrible crime, I was wondering if peoples views and attitudes had changed and whether they believed Dr Vincent Tabak should have received a Manslaughter Conviction or that the Murder Conviction was correct..

There are some whom believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent.....

87

[John]

As time has passed in relation to this terrible crime, I was wondering if peoples views and attitudes had changed and whether they believed he should have received a Manslaughter Conviction or that the Murder Conviction was correct..

There are some whom believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent.....

It is a mystery to me as to why he was convicted of murder, maybe that is why two jurors declined.   He is an intelligent bloke with a girlfriend, a good job and a loving family such as we were told.  To go out and kill on a premeditated basis was illogical imo.

Given the somewhat complicated criteria for murder versus manslaughter under English Law I believe the verdict was correct.  The evidence from the trial appears to indicate that there was a prolonged assault on Joanna and that she fought for her life.  The claim of accidental killing must surely be discounted in those circumstances.  Although there is no proof that Tabak set out to kill Joanna, the evidence strongly suggests he did so in the end.


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/

[mrswah]

I believe that, at first, four jurors declined, then the judge said he would accept a majority verdict.

I have said on a number of occasions that I do not KNOW that Vincent Tabak is innocent. I could be quite wrong about this, but I believe he could well be.  The verdict has never sat well with me.  All my views are laid out in our 100 page thread, but for those who can't be bothered to go through it all (and I cant really blame you), these are my reasons why:

No forensic evidence found in either Joanna's flat, or in Vincent's.

VT had (as far as we know) no previous "form" of any kind.

As far as we know, he did not know Joanna (she and Greg moved into their flat very shortly before Vincent went to America to work for six weeks.).  He had no reason to kill her.  Who goes and kills their neighbour after a long day at work, when they didn't even know that neighbour, and had no criminal record whatsoever? 

Vincent was accused of killing Joanna between 16th and 19th December----this was said in court.  If he didn't do it on the evening of the 17th, he could not have done it, as his girlfriend, Tanja was around to provide him with an alibi after that  (and nobody has ever suggested that she was in on it). There is no evidence that Joanna was killed on the evening of the 17th. In fact, a witness who heard someone scream "help me" on the morning of the 18th, was never asked to testify in court.

The people allegedly seen and heard by Chris Jefferies were never investigated----as far as we know, and the content of his second witness statement has never been made public.

It is assumed that Vincent confessed to the crime. What he actually said was that he was going to plead guilty, ie he said that he was going to say he had done it, not that he had done it. When first arrested, he said he was innocent, and that he would not have even recognised Joanna, had he not seen her picture in the newspaper. He decided to plead guilty after several weeks on remand. He had never even been inside a police station before his arrest, so who knows what he went through in prison while on remand.

There were a number of odd things about the trial:

His girlfriend, Tanja , did not testify.
His boss did not testify.
His landlord did not testify.
The jury never heard about all the fire and rescue personnel and vehicles deployed to recover Joanna's body (see page 27 of the thread) which, supposedly, was found by dog walkers on a verge, leading me to suspect that the body was, in fact, left somewhere far less accessible. This does not necessarily mean that VT was not the killer, but why were the public and the jury not told?
Why did the defence not do more to defend?
From what I have read of the trial, VT seemed like an automaton, and told a story that was obviously a pack of lies---it seemed as if he was merely telling the story he had been told to tell. I think that is why he "could not remember" the answers to many of the questions he was asked.

In addition, why has everything been so quiet since?  This was a very high profile murder case. I would have expected somebody to have written a book, I would have expected some tabloid to have reported on VT's prison experiences, even if it was just regarding his taste in pizza, or his having been knifed or beaten up, I am very surprised that no tabloid has reported on what his family thinks, what his girlfriend thinks what his friends think, etc,  I would have expected a reply to my request for his prison number so that I could write to him (you may think I'm "sick" to want to do so----no, I'm not, I actually want to write the book!!).

Ok, let's leave things here for now---I know people don't like long posts, and there is plenty on the thread!

 

[John]

I believe that, at first, four jurors declined, then the judge said he would accept a majority verdict.

I have said on a number of occasions that I do not KNOW that Vincent Tabak is innocent. I could be quite wrong about this, but I believe he could well be.  The verdict has never sat well with me.  All my views are laid out in our 100 page thread, but for those who can't be bothered to go through it all (and I cant really blame you), these are my reasons why:

No forensic evidence found in either Joanna's flat, or in Vincent's.

VT had (as far as we know) no previous "form" of any kind.

As far as we know, he did not know Joanna (she and Greg moved into their flat very shortly before Vincent went to America to work for six weeks.).  He had no reason to kill her.  Who goes and kills their neighbour after a long day at work, when they didn't even know that neighbour, and had no criminal record whatsoever? 

Vincent was accused of killing Joanna between 16th and 19th December----this was said in court.  If he didn't do it on the evening of the 17th, he could not have done it, as his girlfriend, Tanja was around to provide him with an alibi after that  (and nobody has ever suggested that she was in on it). There is no evidence that Joanna was killed on the evening of the 17th. In fact, a witness who heard someone scream "help me" on the morning of the 18th, was never asked to testify in court.

The people allegedly seen and heard by Chris Jefferies were never investigated----as far as we know, and the content of his second witness statement has never been made public.

It is assumed that Vincent confessed to the crime. What he actually said was that he was going to plead guilty, ie he said that he was going to say he had done it, not that he had done it. When first arrested, he said he was innocent, and that he would not have even recognised Joanna, had he not seen her picture in the newspaper. He decided to plead guilty after several weeks on remand. He had never even been inside a police station before his arrest, so who knows what he went through in prison while on remand.

There were a number of odd things about the trial:

His girlfriend, Tanja , did not testify.
His boss did not testify.
His landlord did not testify.
The jury never heard about all the fire and rescue personnel and vehicles deployed to recover Joanna's body (see page 27 of the thread) which, supposedly, was found by dog walkers on a verge, leading me to suspect that the body was, in fact, left somewhere far less accessible. This does not necessarily mean that VT was not the killer, but why were the public and the jury not told?
Why did the defence not do more to defend?
From what I have read of the trial, VT seemed like an automaton, and told a story that was obviously a pack of lies---it seemed as if he was merely telling the story he had been told to tell. I think that is why he "could not remember" the answers to many of the questions he was asked.

In addition, why has everything been so quiet since?  This was a very high profile murder case. I would have expected somebody to have written a book, I would have expected some tabloid to have reported on VT's prison experiences, even if it was just regarding his taste in pizza, or his having been knifed or beaten up, I am very surprised that no tabloid has reported on what his family thinks, what his girlfriend thinks what his friends think, etc,  I would have expected a reply to my request for his prison number so that I could write to him (you may think I'm "sick" to want to do so----no, I'm not, I actually want to write the book!!).

Ok, let's leave things here for now---I know people don't like long posts, and there is plenty on the thread!

All very good points but at the end of the day Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter and has never retracted that admission. There was no reason for him to do so other than the enormous weight of guilt and shame which he had brought upon himself and his family respectively.

I agree, there are elements of this case which require further scrutiny but I fear the only miscarriage was the charge itself which the CPS brought and thereafter managed a 10 - 2 jury majority.

[pathfinder73]

Nope he was guilty - should have been murder. HELP ME!

A young woman attending a party at a neighbouring house on Canynge Road on the night of Yeates' disappearance recalled hearing two loud screams shortly after 9:00 pm coming from the direction of Yeates' flat. Another neighbour who lived behind Yeates' home said that he heard a high-pitched woman's voice scream "Help me".

The prosecution also said that Tabak attempted to implicate Chrisopher Jefferies for the murder during the police investigation, and that in the days following Yeates' death, he had made internet searches for topics that included the length of time a body takes to decompose and the dates of refuse collections in the Clifton area.

In his defence, Tabak claimed that the killing had not been sexually motivated, and told the court that he had killed Yeates while trying to silence her after she screamed when he tried to kiss her. He claimed that Yeates had made a "flirty comment" and invited him to drink with her. He said that after she screamed he held his hands over her mouth and around her neck to silence her. He denied suggestions of a struggle, claiming to have held Yeates by the neck with only minimal force, and "for about 20 seconds". He told the court that after dumping the body he was "in a state of panic".

In the months leading up to Yeates' death, Tabak had used his computer to research escort agencies during business trips in the United Kingdom and United States, and contacted several prostitutes by phone.

He also viewed violent internet pornography that depicted women being controlled by men, showing images of them being bound and gagged, held by the neck and choked. During the murder investigation, police found images of a woman who bore a striking resemblance to Yeates. In one scene she was shown pulling up a pink top to expose her bra and breasts. When Yeates was discovered, she was wearing a similarly arranged pink top.

At Tabak's trial, prosecuting barrister Nigel Lickley QC, argued that the evidence of Tabak's activities should be provided to the jury: "It might shed light on the need to hold a woman for long enough and the need to squeeze hard enough to take her life." Details of Tabak's viewing of pornography were not included in the prosecution's case since the judge believed it did not prove that Tabak had acted with premeditation. After the trial it was disclosed that images of child pornography had been found on Tabak's laptop.

http://murderpedia.org/male.T/t/tabak-vincent.htm

[[...]]

Nope he was guilty - should have been murder. HELP ME!

A young woman attending a party at a neighbouring house on Canynge Road on the night of Yeates' disappearance recalled hearing two loud screams shortly after 9:00 pm coming from the direction of Yeates' flat. Another neighbour who lived behind Yeates' home said that he heard a high-pitched woman's voice scream "Help me".

The prosecution also said that Tabak attempted to implicate Chrisopher Jefferies for the murder during the police investigation, and that in the days following Yeates' death, he had made internet searches for topics that included the length of time a body takes to decompose and the dates of refuse collections in the Clifton area.

In his defence, Tabak claimed that the killing had not been sexually motivated, and told the court that he had killed Yeates while trying to silence her after she screamed when he tried to kiss her. He claimed that Yeates had made a "flirty comment" and invited him to drink with her. He said that after she screamed he held his hands over her mouth and around her neck to silence her. He denied suggestions of a struggle, claiming to have held Yeates by the neck with only minimal force, and "for about 20 seconds". He told the court that after dumping the body he was "in a state of panic".

In the months leading up to Yeates' death, Tabak had used his computer to research escort agencies during business trips in the United Kingdom and United States, and contacted several prostitutes by phone.

He also viewed violent internet pornography that depicted women being controlled by men, showing images of them being bound and gagged, held by the neck and choked. During the murder investigation, police found images of a woman who bore a striking resemblance to Yeates. In one scene she was shown pulling up a pink top to expose her bra and breasts. When Yeates was discovered, she was wearing a similarly arranged pink top.

At Tabak's trial, prosecuting barrister Nigel Lickley QC, argued that the evidence of Tabak's activities should be provided to the jury: "It might shed light on the need to hold a woman for long enough and the need to squeeze hard enough to take her life." Details of Tabak's viewing of pornography were not included in the prosecution's case since the judge believed it did not prove that Tabak had acted with premeditation. After the trial it was disclosed that images of child pornography had been found on Tabak's laptop.

http://murderpedia.org/male.T/t/tabak-vincent.htm

Hi pathfinder

The screams are how the police determined the time that Joanna Yeates was attacked according to  DCI Joe Goff, but they discounted other screams that where heard... the neighbour who heard something along the lines of 'Help Me'.. was a forum user on BC called Kingdom who lived behind Canygne Road.

He says that he actually heard the 'Help Me".. on Saturday 18th December 2010 mid morning, also the neighbours on the Friday evening originally thought the screams were party goers, and the timings are all different.

I don't believe that Dr Vincent Tabak tried to implicate CJ, it was either an observation or what he had said in his early written statements, he had helped move the car...

"I remember at some point before he was arrested but after Joanna was known to be missing that Tanja and I were staying at her parents' house in Cambridge for Christmas," Tabak's statement said.

"The police had phoned us at least twice while we were there. Tanja and I discussed the business of being asked to help move his car in the icy drive on Saturday December 18.

This made me question when CJ saw people at the gate, as he told the Leveson Inquiry that his car was on the road at the time, but he wasn't completley sure that it was the Friday evening he saw this happen..

(IMO) I think the car was on the road Saturday because the drive was icy and he wouldn't put it back in it's designated parking space as he had difficulty moving it without assistance.

Which would then make Saturday the day he say or heard someone at the small gate.. (IMO)


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169

[John]

This case raises an interesting question.  Why would anyone think that Vincent Tabak is innocent or might be innocent if he has already admitted to manslaughter and has maintained that position since his trial?

[[...]]

This case raises an interesting question.  Why would anyone think that Vincent Tabak is innocent or might be innocent if he has already admitted to manslaughter and has maintained that position since his trial?

I am of the belief he is Innocent John, as you are aware... 

This case has caused me many sleepless nights, it goes around and around... I believe the Police rushed to accuse Dr Vincent Tabak as they had CJ....

There underhanded tactic of going over to Holland to interview him as a supposed witness, was indeed a interview as a suspect, with it taking some 6 hours, which Dutch Law allows for an interview of a suspect before you charge or release them.. They were only supposed to be asking him when CJ's car had changed position, according to DC Karen Thomas... This was a 5 minute question..(IMO) They didn't need to fly to Holland for this (IMO)

The trial was a travesty from start to finish, with The Dutchman sat not knowing the answers to over 80 questions that the prosecution had put to him... The Defence not only did not defend (IMO) they actively helped the prosecution with underhand statements of despise for their client with words such as:

1:  his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.

2:  “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”

3:   And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single  appearance at court.

4:  He had told “lie after lie to the police.

5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.

6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.

7:  “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.

8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.

9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.

10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me

The searches I do not believe belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak, the prosecution also asked the jury to add a word they apparently had not written in their copy of the 1300 page document...They asked them to add "DEFINITION" to the words  "Sexual Conduct'... which changes the meaning altogether. As for 'Sexual Conduct'.. that is a legal term and I'm sure Dr Vincent Tabak would not be aware of this fact...


I'll continue on another post... I know mine are generally very long.. but I would say informative...

[[...]]

The time scale in which Dr Vincent Tabak had to do this crime is quite small, which makes CJ's statements very valuable as evidence as to what he saw or observed over the weekend of 17th Dec to 19th Dec 2010. But we do not know their content..

If as is reported in the media that Joanna Yeates wore a Pink Flower Patterned Top and her Jeans are Blue in the court drawings, that suggests that she had changed her clothing on the Friday evening possibliy the Saturday morning... If we say Friday, that still changes the timescale that the prosecution have said her death occurred.

The Timescale is paramount... The 1300 page document that the prosecution furnished the defence with on the 7th Oct 2011 in court, contained all the Timelines, emails, texts and phone calls of Joanna Yeates, Greg Reardon, Tanja Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak..  The defence did not have the time to cross reference these timelines to even see if his client had the window of opportunity to commit the offence.

At no time does Dr Vincent Tabak confess to this crime, not even to the pretend chaplain Brotherton whom assumed the roll as Chaplain in Long Lartin just before Dr Vincent Tabak was sent there.. Brotherton was an Ardent member of the Salvation Army and therefore didn't have to keep any talk between himself and prisoners private, it never had anything to do with him betraying the church... he betrayed himself (IMO) and personally I believe he was put in Long Lartin just for Dr Vincent Tabak. (IMO)

Going back to the 1300 page document, there are 2 searches which I believe it was impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have done, these are innocuous searches and were easily over looked:

On 18 Dec 2010, Tabak searched at
1.26 am- ‘BBC news’ and ‘weather forecast’
1.46 am- ‘weather forecast’
1.47 am- ‘BBC Bristol news’

At 1:26 am Dr Vincent Tabak was still at home, he was seen leaving at 1:38am on the 18th December 2010

He had gone to collect his girlfriend Tanja from the party she had been attending and he had driven to the centre of Bristol to pick her up...

This means it's IMPOSSIBLE (IMO) for Dr Vincent Tabak to have done two searches one at  1:46am and one at 1:47am on the 18th December 2010, when he was not at home to do these searches!!!
For me this revelation discredits all of the searches that they have attributed to Dr Vincent Tabak..
Not only that the defence had him in his own flat till 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010

The moving of a dead weight is extremely difficult, he is supposed to have moved Joanna Yeates numerous times into rooms in her flat and into his flat then into a bicycle bag/cover then his car, all without it causing him a problem.. Moving a dead weight is extremely difficult and exhausting. Statistically I do not believe that most perpertetors move their victim from the scene of crime, rather they walk/drive them to the location they are found.



Lyndsey Lennen stating in The Guardian and I quote:

A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.

So if it only took 48 hours to turn around everything and they had Dr Vincent Tabak DNA on the 31st December 2010 which they obtained in Holland, how did she manage to analylis Dr Vincent Tabak's Black Coat when he hadn't been arrested by till the 20th January 2011???  I know that they had access to all of the flats at Canygne Road, Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson had moved out..

Is she admitting to having his coat fibres from that earlier time??? (IMO) she is!!!!

So Lyndsey Lennen says 48 hours and DCI phil Jones stated it took weeks..... on the Crime Watch Program...

I'll stop there for the moment.... there is plenty of information in the main thread which casts doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction.(IMO)



https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

[Leonora]

This case raises an interesting question.  Why would anyone think that Vincent Tabak is innocent or might be innocent if he has already admitted to manslaughter and has maintained that position since his trial?

No, John, the interesting question is, why anyone would think him GUILTY after being confronted with all the evidence of the weirdest murder prosecution of all time? Can you cite any other high-profile case where an eminent defence barrister used so many devices to ensure a guilty verdict for his own client?

Not once did the prosecutor mention the word "motive". Counsel for the Defence would know that the jury would have expected to hear what the police and the CPS thought was this highly motivated academic defendant's motive for killing Joanna. So his first line of defence would be to draw the jury's attention to the prosecution's failure to suggest a motive. Did Counsel for the Defence EVER even mention the word "motive" - no, he did not. This meant that the jury couldn't even discuss the motive.

Why did Vincent Tabak not replace his lawyers when he had the chance? Just to jog your memory, he retained the same two law firms when he appeared on trial for possessing illegal images of child abuse 2½ years after his conviction for murder. Why would even a guilty defendant be satisfied with such an appallingly inadequate defence performance? There can be only one rational explanation, and that is, that the CPS wanted a murderer, and Vincent Tabak's lawyers undertook to serve him up to them, in return for a secret amnesty and a new identity.

[[...]]

At this point I'll post the results of the poll to see if it changes as time passes:

Guilty as Charged (16.7%)
Guilty of Manslaughter not Murder (41.7%)
Think he could be Innocent (25%)
He is Innocent (16.7%)


Interesting statistics so far....

[[...]]

This case raises an interesting question.  Why would anyone think that Vincent Tabak is innocent or might be innocent if he has already admitted to manslaughter and has maintained that position since his trial?

People have confessed to crimes they haven't committed in the past and now.... It is well known that people whom are either under duress or cannot cope mentally with the situation in front of them confess just for it all to go away...

Once you have gone down that path it is extremely difficult to undo as with Stefan Kizco and the West Memphis Three... it takes years and lots of help from people whom believe in you...

[Leonora]

At no time does Dr Vincent Tabak confess to this crime, not even to the pretend chaplain Brotherton whom assumed the roll as Chaplain in Long Lartin just before Dr Vincent Tabak was sent there.. Brotherton was an Ardent member of the Salvation Army and therefore didn't have to keep any talk between himself and prisoners private, it never had anything to do with him betraying the church... he betrayed himself (IMO) and personally I believe he was put in Long Lartin just for Dr Vincent Tabak. (IMO)

Not only was Brotherton put there just for Vincent Tabak - he was a senior prison officer from another prison, pretending to be an independent chaplain. Counsel for the defence made a pretence of discrediting him under cross-examination in court, referring amongst other things to an imaginary statement made by the witness on 16 February 2011 that neither the judge nor the jury ever got to see. However, Counsel never asked him, "Am I right in thinking that you are a senior prison officer by profession?"

[mrswah]

This case raises an interesting question.  Why would anyone think that Vincent Tabak is innocent or might be innocent if he has already admitted to manslaughter and has maintained that position since his trial?

I agree with the replies to this question given by Nine and Leonora----apart from the fact I do not believe that Vincent is anywhere other than in prison!  I, too, have said plenty on this subject on the main thread.

I would like to know more about Vincent's state of mind at the time he decided to plead guilty to manslaughter. Had he been given medication that might cause him not to be able to remember what happened, or which induced false memories?  Had he suffered a breakdown? Was he severely depressed? Was he able to cope with being in prison? Was he being treated well? Had he just given up?

Many people have confessed to things they did not do: it is a well known phenomenon.  However, don't forget that he said he was going to plead guilty---he did not say "I killed Joanna."  That is what the newspapers said!

I have been trying to make contact with Vincent for some time. For some reason (too much work, according to them), the Prisoner Location Service has not been forthcoming with a response to my request to write to him.  If Vincent were to tell me at this stage, that yes, he did kill Joanna, and why he did it, and that made sense, then I would have to accept that I had been wrong, and he was guilty.  Until then, I suspect that he had nothing to do with the crime.

[Leonora]

The time scale in which Dr Vincent Tabak had to do this crime is quite small, which makes CJ's statements very valuable as evidence as to what he saw or observed over the weekend of 17th Dec to 19th Dec 2010. But we do not know their content..

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.