Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest > The murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol in December 2010.

The Plea

<< < (2/9) > >>

John:
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.

mrswah:

--- Quote from: John 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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Leonora:

--- Quote from: John 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.

--- End quote ---
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.

Angelo222:

--- Quote from: Leonora on April 06, 2017, 11:54:59 AM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Leonora:

--- Quote from: mrswah on April 05, 2017, 10:34:34 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.

--- End quote ---
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?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version