The Plea

[Leonora]

Really?  Hypnotism now??  That really is sad Leonora.

Instead of simply making fun of arguments posted by other members, Angelo222, why don't you explain what made him plead guilty to a crime he hadn't committed, when there was no evidence against him? Was it done by forcing him to share a cell with a violent prisoner who insisted on playing a broken record 24 hours a day? Long Lartin specialises in violent prisoners serving long sentences.

[John]

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 4½ 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?

And just a tad of DNA.

[[...]]

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

People do and have pleaded guilty to murder, it's been proven I believe mrswah posted on this subject in the main thread.

So.... why is the plea needed ??? (keeping on topic)

Was it admissible at his main trial??? The plea in itself was the evidence that the prosecution had, not anything else.... not weak DNA... it's the plea that is the cornerstone of the Prosecution case..

What actually backs up this plea..... NOTHING as far as I can see.. it's weak beyond belief... it's holier than thou...
I've written on the "Defence will State their case" thread, that I believe the jury only had the option to find him Guilty Of Murder Or Not Guilty of murder... I do not believe they had the option to find him guilty of Manslaughter....So with that in mind, what does this plea do???

We have our minds confused by the information... we need clarity... Could he have withdrawn the plea at any time????

If he only had the charge of Murder and the Jury had only to find him guilt of Murder Or Not... Then where is the evidence to back up this so called plea?????

How does the evidence prove he did it... The plea says he did it....... BUT....... anyone can say they did anything...

I do believe I need to clarify that the Jury had two options and two options only.....

(1): Guilty of Murder

(2): Not Guilty of Murder

I believe they were swayed by the PLEA.... and not the evidence... because just like some people believe they too would have probably said

"No sane person would plead guilty to murder"....

And they believed he was guilty of causing her death!!!! because he said he was responsible... But at No point does he actually say he killed Joanna Yeates...

And if they were only given 2 choices at to his  guilt, then they (IMO) went with Guilty of Murder, because I don't think there was a Manslaughter option!! (I Could be wrong)..

So we do not know what would have happened if the Jury said "Not Guilty"!!!

Where would that leave Dr Vincent Tabak.... would he be able to withdraw his plea????

[[...]]

Question?????

Is the Plea ever mentioned at the Murder Trial ?????

This is extremely important.....  Does the fact that at The Old Bailey.. Dr Vincent Tabak entered a Plea ever get mentioned in The murder trial??????

I don't believe it does!!!!! Someone enlighten me please


Are the words "Old Bailey ever uttered"????? Are the words "guilty" ever uttered by the Prosection or the defence in relation to the PLEA at "THE MURDER TRIAL" ???

[mrswah]

I can believe that a sane person could plead guilty to a crime he or she did not commit, under the following circumstances:

Sleep deprivation, especially if combined with drugs to "help" one sleep.

Solitary confinement (don't think that would bother me too much, actually, but it would be hell on earth for many people).

Loss of contact with family and friends, and feeling alone in a foreign country.

The very thought of being charged with a crime one hadn't committed.

Relentless questioning by police.

How's that for starters?

[[...]]

I can believe that a sane person could plead guilty to a crime he or she did not commit, under the following circumstances:

Sleep deprivation, especially if combined with drugs to "help" one sleep.

Solitary confinement (don't think that would bother me too much, actually, but it would be hell on earth for many people).

Loss of contact with family and friends, and feeling alone in a foreign country.

The very thought of being charged with a crime one hadn't committed.

Relentless questioning by police.

How's that for starters?

I have been trying to work out why he couldn't remember half of what was supposed to have taken place... And there are techniques that can be used... I am NOT saying they were, just looking at it from a different angle...

I was looking at False Memory as I follow various people on Twitter.. False Memory came up in a Tweet... so I looked and found this:

For the other 30 students the false event was an emotional event for example the loss of a pet or a personal injury. In each subsequent interview the students were asked to describe to the researcher what happened during each of the two events and to give as much detail as possible.

When they struggled to recall any details about the false event they were encouraged to use memory techniques to help them remember more details.  They were asked to think about how vivid the memory was to them and how confident they felt about all the details surrounding the memory of the event.

That reminded me of when Dr Vincent Tabak was asked by Clegg to close his eyes to relive the event!!

Then this reminded me when Clegg told Dr Vincent Tabak, (as if he was annoyed..)

Defence Counsel: I will tell you to start to remember what you did and when you took
your hand away from Joanna's neck. Now. When you took your hand away, what did she
do?

Dr Vincent Tabak Cannot remember on Numerous occasions...... And Clegg always asks him if he can REMEMBER.... Just sounds a bit odd now,......

Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.

Dr Vincent Tabak remembers... or not...

Defence Counsel: Can we just put the timeline to one side? What did you do after 7.37pm?
Tabak: I drank a beer. I watched TV- I cannot remember what. I had supper- a readymade
pizza. Then I decided to go out again.

Defence Counsel: Did she hit herself as she fell?
Tabak: I can’t remember- I was still in a state of panic.

Defence Counsel: Did the cover become inverted?
Tabak: I can’t remember.

Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I remembered that there were some disposal containers on the road in Clifton.

Defence Counsel: Were they on wheels?
Tabak: I can’t remember.

Then back to the article:...

When recalling the true events, those which had actually happened, the students were more confident in their memories than those which were false. However, the false event recollections were entirely believable.

I thought about this... when he talks about his earlier life and his education Tanja etc... his answers are more believeable after that it seems vague to me...

Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline chart again. No 76. Jo Yeates did not get back to
her flat until 8.37 or thereabouts. Timeline 39- you ultimately went to Asda at approx
10.13 pm.
Can you help by telling what time you believe you went to Asda?
Tabak: No not exactly.

Can you help.... it sounded weird to me in the first place.... he's not a child.. why talk to him in that manner...

From this point onwards, Dr Vincent Tabak's answers get vaguer...


I don't really know what I am saying, but It seems coincidental.. thats all and possible if not probable... but as we don't know very much about his incarceration in the early days, then nobody know what took place.... They certainly didn't have someone to evaluate him mentally or they would have been a report at trial....

And for a horrific crime, he fails to answer some 80 questions....I believe......

Edit:.... Maybe thats why Dr Vincent Tabak says he was Responsible for her death... He Never admits to killing her ever!

“…But, at the very least, this research calls into question whether we should be putting so much weight on any memory in court”—especially in the absence of corroborating proof. It’s sort of a reality check.”

Yes indeed... thats why I like everything brought into question... I need to know why the evidence doesn't stack up!!!



https://www.crimetraveller.org/2015/10/implanting-false-memories-of-crime/

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

[mrswah]

And just a tad of DNA.

Low-copy DNA, which could not be challenged by the defence, as the sample was all used up in the enhancing process. This does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and I did read (don't remember where, sorry!!) that without the guilty plea, the forensic evidence would not have been sufficient to convict VT.

Just a tad-----indeed. One would have expected there to be good forensic evidence, IMO.

[[...]]

Low-copy DNA, which could not be challenged by the defence, as the sample was all used up in the enhancing process. This does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and I did read (don't remember where, sorry!!) that without the guilty plea, the forensic evidence would not have been sufficient to convict VT.

Just a tad-----indeed. One would have expected there to be good forensic evidence, IMO.

Completely agree mrswah

[mrswah]

As pointed out by Nine, VT did answer early questions satisfactorily (those concerning his background, family, work, etc).

All those "can't remembers" could be for one of the following reasons, and different posters have differing views on this.

He might have been told/guided as to what to say in court, and had not committed the crime. Therefore, he merely forgot the answers he had been told to give.

He might have killed Jo, and was ashamed of what he had done, and so did not want to remember.
He might have killed Jo accidentally, and the total shock of what he had done, and having to live with it, caused him not to remember.
He might just be an evasive liar.
He might have been suffering from "false memory syndrome", which, I understand, is a recognised condition in the psychiatric world.

I'm going with the first one, and I'm sure I'm in a very great minority!!!  I'll leave you all in peace to make up your own minds

He might have killed Jo accidentally, and the shock of living with what he had done caused him not to remember.

He might have just been an evasive liar.

He might, indeed, have been suffering from "false memory syndrome", which, I understand, is a recognised condition.

I go with the first one, and I expect I am one of the few who does-----but we must all make up our own minds!

He might

[[...]]

Adding to my previous post... "False memory"... I was thinking how it would apply to someone who was Placid....

Then I found this..

People who were more knowledgable about a subject were nearly twice as likely to remember incidents relating to that topic that never happened.

He goes on to say:

Lead author Dr Ciara Green, a lecturer in the school of psychology at Dublin said: “Increasing scientific and public understanding of the causes of false memory is an important goal, particularly in light of some of the more negative consequences associated with the phenomenon, including faulty eyewitness accounts and the controversies surrounding false memories of traumatic childhood events.

Researched...

The research is presented at the a annual conference of the British Psychological Society’s Cognitive Psychology Section in Barcelona.

According to the screenshots and the link below... A person emotional state can have baring on false memories..

And the constant showing of Images of Joanna Yeates body created an extremely emotional Dr Vincent Tabak... For this detatched crazy person... he was far from detached in the court room!!!!



http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4xt2f1q4

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/08/24/why-experts-get-it-wrong-being-knowledgeable-about-a-subject-imp/

[[...]]

Other instances which could lean towards a "false Memory".. if I am looking at this angle.. Is when Dr Vincent Tabak corrects himself, but in an odd way... I'll give you an example..

Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.

Then:...

Defence Counsel: Then you took the body out to the street?
Tabak: No. I backed the car into the drive.

Then he says:....

Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road?
Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road.

This answer has nagged at me...  why say two opposite things... if he backed the car into the drive , then the boot cannot face the road!!

Defence Counsel: Then in Holland the English police took your DNA. What did you think
would happen?
Tabak: I was thinking I would be arrested anytime.
Defence Counsel: Do you know what DNA is?
Tabak: Yes.

So he believe he would be matched.... So why say this??

Defence Counsel: In your first statement, you lied. Why did you lie?
Tabak: I was hoping that they didn’t have enough evidence and I was hoping they would
let me go.

You can't have it both ways... he either knew it would be a sure match, which begs the question why voluntarily give a DNA sample at all...
Then on the other hand he says he hoped they didn't have enough evidence...

These contradictions nag at me.....

And here he accepts responsibility, but in a strange way...

Defence Counsel: What did you think would happen?
Tabak: I was sure I would be arrested. Tanya kept me going. Can I say that I am really
sorry for being responsible for her death. I am really sorry for putting her parents through
all that worry that week before she was found.

Who told him he was responsible for the death of Joanna Yeates??? Because that is a really bizarre answer!!!

[John]

I can believe that a sane person could plead guilty to a crime he or she did not commit, under the following circumstances:

Sleep deprivation, especially if combined with drugs to "help" one sleep.

Solitary confinement (don't think that would bother me too much, actually, but it would be hell on earth for many people).

Loss of contact with family and friends, and feeling alone in a foreign country.

The very thought of being charged with a crime one hadn't committed.

Relentless questioning by police.

How's that for starters?

Very unlikely imo unless the individual was a drug addict or had mental health problems, none of which applied to Vincent Tabak.

Believe it or not, the prison service has an excellent record for looking after those in its care. That's not to say that on occasion things do go wrong but then that applies to everything in life.

There is no evidence that Vincent Tabak suffered adversely from any of the deprivations you mention above.  He admitted his guilt when his conscience got the better of him and never retracted it as some do.

[mrswah]

Very unlikely imo unless the individual was a drug addict or had mental health problems, none of which applied to Vincent Tabak.

Believe it or not, the prison service has an excellent record for looking after those in its care. That's not to say that on occasion things do go wrong but then that applies to everything in life.

There is no evidence that Vincent Tabak suffered adversely from any of the deprivations you mention above.  He admitted his guilt when his conscience got the better of him and never retracted it as some do.

To be perfectly honest, I have never been inside a prison, either as an inmate, a worker or a visitor, so I actually have no idea whether or not prisoners are treated well.

I would guess that some prisoners cope with being "inside" far better than others do, even if the staff treat them all equally well.

I have read (as I am sure everyone has) accounts of inmates attacking other inmates, having their food spat in, etc. At least some of these accounts must be true!

VT was moved from Bristol Prison for his own safety----which indicates that prisoners are not always kept safe.

I understand that a significant minority of prisoners commit suicide.

I also understand that some types of prisoner (eg child killers) are treated far worse than others----at least, by other inmates.

In addition, the prison service has suffered from funding cuts, and , for all I know, the quality of care may not be as good as it should be. It is likely that prisons are short staffed, leading to inmates being "banged up" in their cells for a good part of the day.

So (and, of course, this is my opinion, and I am speculating), I would imagine that some people who were perfectly "sane" before being convicted, develop severe mental health problems in prison. This could be because they believe they were unfairly convicted, or because they are afraid of the other inmates, or because they have been separated from their loved ones, or because they cannot stand solitary confinement.

[John]

All prisoners are monitored for signs of mental stress from the moment they go inside.  Some do hide it though and that is when problems start.  Any prisoner can ask to be put on protection if they feel compromised because of their crime or other factors.

If you are attempting to excuse Vincent Tabak's confession on the basis of his treatment whilst on remand I'm afraid it won't wash.

[[...]]

All prisoners are monitored for signs of mental stress from the moment they go inside.  Some do hide it though and that is when problems start.  Any prisoner can ask to be put on protection if they feel compromised because of their crime or other factors.

If you are attempting to excuse Vincent Tabak's confession on the basis of his treatment whilst on remand I'm afraid it won't wash.

Yet... No psychological evaluation was ever presented at trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... who  according to Offcial lines needed moving 3 times to 3 different prisons within a 48 hour window and then put in a perspex fronted cell.... as I believe the excuse was he was on suicide watch,,...

How do you qualify for your own private gold fish bowl without having a psychological evaluation in the first place!