Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[Leonora]

I have been following this thread with delight. I thought I knew this case very well indeed, but this thread has thrown up many facts that were new to me, and some are very important. For example, the press themselves did not report most of the many sensible questions they put to "The Policeman" at his first press conference - because he gave evasive answers to these. He also told several big lies - so no one should believe anything he said in interviews after the trial, except when he was under oath at the Leveson Inquiry. This includes his remarks about DNA.

[Leonora]

My correspondent who was in court for the trial of Vincent Tabak told me that members of the public were forbidden to take any notes. Isn't this strange? Much of what he told me was largely subjective, and he wasn't keen to answer questions from me. So if an usher from Bristol Crown Court were to post on this forum claiming that the public was informed that the plea hearing would take place in London, then I could not contradict them. However, I have posted a dozen items of evidence in support of the proposition that the plea was not what Vincent Tabak himself intended.

"Nine", you posted curiosity about 'How many times the images of Joanna Yeates was shown to the Jury' and  'What the film looked like that Lyndsey Farmery had shown the Jury' and whether 'there was any REDACTED Text'. These would have been important questions to answer and I am sorry that I missed my opportunity. Until you mentioned it, I didn't even know that the so-called IT-expert HAD shown a film, unless you mean the body farm decomposition video?

If you read carefully what Peter Brotherton told the court, and what he and Mr Clegg said to each other during cross-examination, you will be able to work out that the witness NEVER actually told the court that the defendant had said that he had killed the victim. You will also be able to work out that it was Mr Clegg himself who deceived the court into believing that his client had "confessed". Finally, you will also be able to work out that Judge Field was not doing the job, a major part of which is to monitor Counsel like a hawk to prevent them leading any witness.

Vincent Tabak's purpose in meeting with Peter Brotherton was not "to confess", but something quite different. This is totally misrepresented in "The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies". No one heard about the so-called chaplain until the trial. The prisoner's intention was probably to seek the advice, perhaps about the choice of a different lawyer, as he was being kept in isolation. He must have been "shocked" by Crossman & Co's suggestion that he should plead guilty to manslaughter.

[Leonora]

As for Brotherton.... I refuse to be polite about that man..... He was an adherant member of the Salvation army and was not at liberty to keep any information to himself,... which could also allow him to lie as to what Dr Vincent Tabak said.....

Do we really know that Dr Vincent Tabak actually  talked to this PRETEND CHAPLAIN... we only have their word that  this interaction took place.....

I know that Dr Vincent Tabak at no time said that he Killed Joanna Yeates.... It's like everything else ... they want you to believe this is what he said.....

As for the Judge I noticed that he wasn't doing his job when he left the documents pertaining to the case in his chambers when the prosecution directed him to them..... (1300 page document with all the timelines in it!!!)....

Whilst looking for that statement which at the mo i cannot find... I came across this.....

If Dr Vincent Tabak had pleaded guilty in May at the Old bailey.... then why did it take until September for him to sign any statement???????

Doesn't add up

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

For years, I speculated about the identity and background of Peter Brotherton. Not until this thread did I learn that he was a senior prison officer (probably retired) from another prison. Like most of the other witnesses, he was very careful not to perjure himself. Therefore, I believe that we can trust the statements he made under oath about the dates of the meetings that the prisoner had requested him. Incidentally, we CANNOT trust most of the important "facts" declared by barristers in court or reportedly displayed on the screens, as these were not proved by any witness under oath.

Vincent Tabak put off signing the enhanced statement till the very last minute because it was compiled by his lawyers. The very last answer he gave in the witness box confirmed this. You have thoroughly explored on this forum the tissue of lies which permeate his testimony. He must have been extremely reluctant to go along with it - but when he did go into the witness box, he gave a masterly performance - for two days. He was word-perfect, despite the outrageous verbal abuse to which Nigel Lickley subjected him. It was the act of a desparate but not a broken man.

[Leonora]

How did they manage to represent him fully if Clegg hadn't ever met him....??

Ian Kelcey, Vincent Tabak's instructing solicitor, is a Bristol lawyer with national influence. He had chaired the Law Society's Criminal Law Committee. A member of his family represented Dr Tabak for his subsequent child pornography trial. He must have met his client in Long Lartin at least once before 5th May 2011. However, it doesn't follow that the QC whom he instructed, William Clegg, also travelled to Long Lartin in person. He would depend on the case papers submitted to him by Ian Kelcey for his own appearance at the Old Bailey on 5th May. I believe that this was also the occasion when the porn and the prostitutes were first discussed in court.

During a trip abroad, an unknown conspirator from the "Courtroom Workgroup" surrounding Vincent Tabak may have watched a recently produced TV version of a 1934 Agatha Christie mystery called “Why didn’t they ask Evans?”, in which an actor impersonated a wealthy and allegedly terminally ill man whom his accomplices murdered. All but one of his servants were sent away, while a lawyer who did not know the deceased was summoned to legalize a forged will.

[Leonora]

The constantly change the information to suit whatever train of thought they want people to believe.... As I said ... some of the earlier confrences were probably more accurate.... Thats why we have NO Significant Injuries and FULLY CLOTHED!!!!!!

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369628#msg369628

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369560;topicseen#msg369560

Ah, yes, those INJURIES!!! I'm so glad you mentioned them. These may have been one of the "hand grenades" that Ann Reddrop of the CPS tossed into the duty solicitor's lap without warning on the eve of the bail hearing, causing Paul Cook QC to change his mind spectacularly and humiliatingly. I do wish we knew her name!!! If you are brave, you will telephone Crosland & Co to ask them which of their staff was on duty at the police station when Vincent Tabak was brought in for questioning.

Those 43 injuries MAY have been caused by her killer, whoever he was - certainly not the placid Dr Tabak, who had no motive nor any history of violence. However, many of the injuries may have been caused by all those heavy appliances needed to retrieve her body from wherever it was REALLY concealed. Or they MAY have been the result of a violent struggle with a male person some time before the incident that led to her death. No medical history was produced for Joanna in court. It is possible that the REAL reason she stayed away from work the day before she went to the Bristol Ram pub was to recover from bruises incurred in a fight the night before.

[John]

Although it is possible that Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty, this is not necessarily the case. There is very strong evidence that he did NOT plead guilty. The following evidence points to the a false plea obtained by tampering with the video-link.

(1) On 31st January 2011, Judge Colman Treacy "pencilled in" a date for the start of the trial, and also a date, 4th May 2011, for the defendant's plea and case management hearing at Bristol Crown Court.

(2) On 4th May 2011, a correspondent of mine who is resident in Somerset went to Bristol with the intention of sitting in the public gallery for the plea hearing. No such hearing was listed on the Crown Court timetable for that day, nor was there any clarification. My correspondent subsequently sat in the public gallery for several days of the trial later in the year.

(3) On 5th May 2011, the press reported that Vincent Tabak's plea and case management hearing was held at the Old Bailey, London - the only one of his hearings not to be held in Bristol. No explanation for the change of date and venue was published. The press had been tipped off about the changes, but the public had not been told.

(4) Instead of Judge Treacy, the hearing was held before Mr. Justice Richard Field, the judge who would also hear the trial. The defendant had not previously appeared before Judge Field, who would not be able to recognise Vincent Tabak. No explanation was published for the change of judge.

(5) At this hearing, Mr Nigel Lickley QC made his second appearance as Counsel for the Prosecution of this defendant. As Vincent Tabak appeared only by video-link on both occasions, Counsel could not be held responsible if the person claiming to be the defendant were not the same person on both occasions.

(6) At this hearing, Mr. William Clegg QC made his first appearance as Counsel for the Defence of this defendant. He was instructed by Ian Kelcey, a different solicitor from the one who had instructed the barristers who had represented Vincent Tabak at the earlier hearings, from a different law firm. There is no evidence of Mr. Kelcey ever having been present at any of the hearings, nor is there any evidence of Mr. Clegg ever having visited Vincent Tabak in prison. So Mr. Clegg could not possibly say whether the person on the video screen at the Old Bailey was the real Vincent Tabak.

(7) Mr. & Mrs. Yeates were escorted by a police officer, Emma Davies, from Bristol to London for the plea hearing. Neither of them had ever met the defendant, so they could not be sure whether he was the person on the screen.

(8) Neither Greg Reardon, nor any of Vincent Tabak's friends, nor his family, nor Hilary Douglas, the only journalist who had interviewed Vincent Tabak, nor anyone else who would recognise him by sight, was reported to be present at the Old Bailey.

(9) After Mr. & Mrs Yeates got home, they told a journalist that they had expected Vincent Tabak to plead guilty. This was an admission that Emma Davies had told Jo's parents beforehand, and she could have known only if it were the police and prosecution who controlled the plea.

(10) When he heard about the plea, the Tabak family spokesman said he was shocked by the news and had heard no suggestion that a guilty plea would be entered.

(11) When he heard about the plea, Vincent Tabak's friend Joran Jessuran, a software engineer from Eindhoven University, tweeted that he had not expected that.

(12) DCI Phil Jones made a statement to the press outside the Old Bailey after the hearing. He was not reported to have been inside the courtroom. It is possible that he had met Vincent Tabak at the police station after he was first arrested, but he took no part in the prisoner's interrogation.

(13) The only evidence allegedly linking Vincent Tabak to the crime was enhanced DNA and 11 coat fibres on the victim's clothes, and microscopic blood traces from the victim in the boot of the car he used. He had no motive so his lawyers had no reason to allow him to plead guilty to killing her.

Just as an actress was engaged to impersonate Joanna Yeates in a TV reconstruction, it would have been straightforward to hire an actor resembling Vincent Tabak to impersonate him for the plea hearing. The room in which the actor sat could have been anywhere. Bristol is a centre of expertise for cartoon animation, so it is also possible that the plea was entered by a digital video simulation of Vincent Tabak.

I think the chances of someone impersonating Vincent Tabak at any hearing was nil.  These things might happen in TV dramas but not in real life in the UK.  Your suggestion is a conspiracy too far!

Hearing venues are often moved to accommodate a Judge who might be sitting on a case in another area miles away.  Easier to move a defendant than a Judge.

Vincent Tabask's lawyer and the CPS would know in advance what plea Vincent Tabak was intending to make.

[Leonora]

That there was a "conspiracy" between the lawyers to ensure Vincent Tabak's conviction for murder is not in question. Just the cross-examination of the so-called chaplain Peter Brotherton by defence QC William Clegg proves that. Why should Mr Clegg collude with a witness to fake evidence of a confession in court, if the defendant really had admitted killing Joanna? Mr Clegg pretended to discredit the witness by suggesting that the old man did not remember what was in the statement he was alleged to have signed immediately after betraying the prisoner's confidence. But there was no such statement! If there had been, the judge and the jury would have been able to consult their copies of it to see for themselves. If the judge had not been party to the conspiracy, he would have told Counsel to stop leading the witness.

Many of the 100 points that "Nine" has listed reinforce the evidence for a conspiracy, or "courtroom group". I listed a dozen separate facts that together point to an imposter at the plea hearing. Isn't that stretching coincidence too far? Why should the real Vincent Tabak have pleaded guilty to a crime for which we now know there was scarcely any evidence against him? If it really was him on the screen, then what methods did the his lawyers, the prison authorities and the CPS use to elicit that plea? - Hypnotism? - Drugs? - The threat of violence against him, or his nieces and nephews?

[John]

That there was a "conspiracy" between the lawyers to ensure Vincent Tabak's conviction for murder is not in question. Just the cross-examination of the so-called chaplain Peter Brotherton by defence QC William Clegg proves that. Why should Mr Clegg collude with a witness to fake evidence of a confession in court, if the defendant really had admitted killing Joanna? Mr Clegg pretended to discredit the witness by suggesting that the old man did not remember what was in the statement he was alleged to have signed immediately after betraying the prisoner's confidence. But there was no such statement! If there had been, the judge and the jury would have been able to consult their copies of it to see for themselves. If the judge had not been party to the conspiracy, he would have told Counsel to stop leading the witness.

Many of the 100 points that "Nine" has listed reinforce the evidence for a conspiracy, or "courtroom group". I listed a dozen separate facts that together point to an imposter at the plea hearing. Isn't that stretching coincidence too far? Why should the real Vincent Tabak have pleaded guilty to a crime for which we now know there was scarcely any evidence against him? If it really was him on the screen, then what methods did the his lawyers, the prison authorities and the CPS use to elicit that plea? - Hypnotism? - Drugs? - The threat of violence against him, or his nieces and nephews?

Tabak obviously felt the need to relieve his conscience so wanted to confess to what he had done. A plea of manslaughter would have seen a much more lenient sentence imposed.  The imposter claim is nonsense as is the conspiracy claim.  Tabak would have been shouting from the rooftops if he had been impersonated by an imposter at the plea hearing.  These things just don't happen in the UK.

[mrswah]

Does a conviction for manslaughter always lead to a much lighter sentence, John? 

[John]

Does a conviction for manslaughter always lead to a much lighter sentence, John?

Almost always since murder is seen as the more serious crime.  Both can attract a life tariff however, it all depends on the circumstances of the crime. 

[mrswah]

Tabak obviously felt the need to relieve his conscience so wanted to confess to what he had done. A plea of manslaughter would have seen a much more lenient sentence imposed.  The imposter claim is nonsense as is the conspiracy claim.  Tabak would have been shouting from the rooftops if he had been impersonated by an imposter at the plea hearing.  These things just don't happen in the UK.

Well, let's hope not!!   

I don't buy into the impostor theory myself: it sounds extremely far-fetched, even for me, and I think there is a lot that is iffy in this case!
 
This is what we have instead:

A man with no history of violence , no criminal record , and in a relationship with his first serious girlfriend, deciding to take a trip to ASDA to buy perfectly "normal" items, attacking and strangling his next door neighbour on the way because she rejected his advances, putting her body in a cycle bag, and then in the boot of his car, doing his shopping looking perfectly calm, then driving a few miles to dump the body, then, a few hours later collecting his girlfriend and  going arm-in-arm to buy burgers.

Apparently he managed to do all this without leaving any fingerprints or DNA in the neighbour's flat:  he did not  exactly have much time to clean up.

This scenario is not the real world either, and I never cease to be amazed that so many people believe it.

[Leonora]

Tabak obviously felt the need to relieve his conscience so wanted to confess to what he had done. A plea of manslaughter would have seen a much more lenient sentence imposed.  The imposter claim is nonsense as is the conspiracy claim.  Tabak would have been shouting from the rooftops if he had been impersonated by an imposter at the plea hearing.  These things just don't happen in the UK.

"These things" may or not be common in the rest of the UK, but "these things" certainly took place in the part of the UK called Avon & Somerset in 2011. It is not very helpful to dismiss the evidence of an imposter as "nonsense". If an imposter were not used, then Vincent Tabak's plea must have been obtained by coercion or blackmail.

After the trial, Dr Tabak's family stated that they feared he would be at risk from vigilante action. This is probably the reason why there is no "shouting from the rooftops" in this case. How many other foreign engineers with PhDs and no history of violence against women are serving life sentences in the UK? He was much more vulnerable than a British defendant with little or no education would have been.

Most of the media accounts of Peter Brotherton's testimony and cross-examination are incomplete and contain précis. Here is a link to one of them:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-killer-confessed-to-chaplain-2372235.html

Cross-examining Peter Brotherton at the trial, Counsel for the Defence William Clegg QC questioned whether Vincent Tabak really had told the Chaplain that he intended to change his plea, and went on to suggest that Vincent Tabak was “a depressed and distressed man unburdening himself”. Counsel asserted that the Chaplain had signed a statement on 16th February 2011, in which he had stated that Vincent Tabak had told him that he intended “to plead guilty”, not “to change his plea”.

Mr Clegg said: “Let me suggest to you there was no suggestion of ‘changing my plea’. ‘I am going to plead guilty’ – that’s what he said. You said ‘What for?’ And he said ‘For the crime I have done’.”

When the barrister suggested some of his evidence today was wrong, Mr Brotherton replied: “If that's what you say, I would agree with you.”

[PaultheRed]

All the 'facts' you put forward for tabak being innocent are all based on his version of the thruth or your own opinions . He was looking to escape a life sentence for murder and secure a manslaughter conviction! His DNA was on Joanna's body and he must have expected that as it was one of his searches wasnt it? How does anyone know how the events of the night of the murder actually played out because we only have his version of events. It's far better to say he misread the signals that he could have accidentally killed her hence the manslaughter charge he admitted to rather than murder , Also if she was murdered outside surely that would explain No DNA in the flat which we know so could  that mean she was not killed outside the flat by him or anyone else, that doesn't make him innocent , it just proves he is a liar and his misread signals are all smoke and mirrors because it fits the manslaughter plea far better than actually murder.
It was stated by him without challenge he was invited in as she waved to him. That may  never have happened as there is nothing to prove this but it  does however sets the scene nicely to go forwards with  his story I didn't mean to do it manslaughter story so basically hearsay at best or a plain out right lie . There is nothing to say the murder took place  in the flat or took place else where any arguments people make to this are either hearsay or their own opinions and can't be proved one way or the other like a lot of the points raised to claim he might be innocent no solid facts or evidence one way or the other it is purely circumstantial so can't be used . What is clear is his DNA was found on her body & her DNA was found in his car it is clear he is fighting to get the lowest sentence possible probably why he apologised in court to her family ....Most if not all the points prove he is a murderer plain and simple and anything else is nothing more than hearsay  by conspiracy theorists  out to get their name up in lights ......

[PaultheRed]

The defence can only do so much as their client went yes I did it!ok not murder but he said she died at his hands so what can they do. His defence are the best in the business read the write up on him and as others have stated. As for no visits maybe they didn't want to they didn't stand by him  because he admitted he murdered her to them who knows unless you were present at earlier meetings & Nothing can prove otherwise other than circumstantial evidence or hearsay .

[Leonora]

All the 'facts' you put forward for tabak being innocent are all based on his version of the thruth or your own opinions . He was looking to escape a life sentence for murder and secure a manslaughter conviction! His DNA was on Joanna's body and he must have expected that as it was one of his searches wasnt it?...

Most of the posts from people who question the verdict are based not on opinions but on reliable facts, reports of alleged facts, and reports of contradictory statements by the protagonists. I have only just joined this mature thread, and I am conscious of the need not to rush in where angels fear to tread.

"His version of the truth", i.e., Dr Tabak's answers under cross-examination, as other posters on this thread have demonstrated, contained a long string of assertions that contradict the known facts, or each other, or plain commonsense. But his answers were obviously carefully rehearsed. I was particularly struck by one brilliant point made earlier on this thread that had never occurred to me before. When asked, "Why did you take the pizza?" the defendant answered "I wasn't thinking straight". Maybe he wasn't - but of all the nick-nacks in all the rooms of Jo's flat, how on earth could he know that the pizza was the one object whose disappearance would result in a mammoth pizza hunt in all the rubbish bins of Bristol?

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/mum-s-tears-joanna-yeates-murder-trial/story-13598437-detail/story.html

"...His DNA was on Joanna's body..." Well, no, not actually. The DNA expert witness Lindsay Lennen told the court that partial DNA from an unidentifiable body fluid that had had to be enhanced before being matched to Dr Tabak's profile had been found on Joanna's body. Hers was a long testimony, and instead of seeking to discredit her evidence - something of which William Clegg QC has long and distinguished experience - he cross-examined her at great length in such a way as to REINFORCE her credibility. Lennen herself later told The Guardian that her "evidence" had not been "tested" in court.

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