Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[mrswah]

I believe the policeman himself admitted that the DNA was "inconclusive."

As for the visits, Tanja, VT's brother and another person visited him in Long Lartin on February 11th, three weeks after he had first been placed on remand, so it cannot be true that nobody wanted to visit him.

So, where and when do you think VT killed Joanna, Paul, if it was not in either of their flats?

[PaultheRed]

Cross-examining forensic scientist Lindsay Lennen, Clegg raised the possibility that Yeates's body could have been transported from her flat in Clifton, Bristol, to the verge where the body was found in Tabak's cycle bag. He asked her if was possible that Tabak's DNA could have been transferred from the bag to Yeates. Lennen agreed it was possible.
That proves he either killed her or he moved the body and someone else killed her but as no other DNA was found that is impossible so he is the only one guilty of her murder ... either  way it proves her DNA came directly off him or his bag what reason would she be doing in his bag oh yes just a minute she was dead! killed by him & nothing else prove otherwise .

[Leonora]

"For the Crime I have done"??????

That could refer to absolutly anything.....  It depends what he has been told is a crime in this country... He wouldn't know British Law... And certain Laws in this country can be applied when and where it suits....

That is how I looked at it from October 2011 to May 2012. Then the truth came to me in a garden in northern Germany, but it could just as well have been the road to Damascus. I could barely contain my impatience to get back to the hotel to check on the computer what was actually said in court. Vincent Tabak NEVER said "for the crime that I have done". Nor did Peter Brotherton ever say those words under oath. ONLY William Clegg QC said those words! Counsel did NOT ask the witness, "Did he say these words?" - so the witness was not perjuring himself by replying, "If that is what you say, then I would agree with you".

A barrister cannot be prosecuted for what he says in court. He can tell lies if he thinks he can get away with it. He can say things that no witness under oath has said, if he thinks the judge won't notice. In this trial, both barristers stated an astonshing lot of things that the jury took in good faith as facts, even though no witness ever testified to them. And the judge never stepped in, as he should have done.

This is terribly important, and terribly simple, yet it took me 6 months to realise it.

[PaultheRed]

I believe the policeman himself admitted that the DNA was "inconclusive."

As for the visits, Tanja, VT's brother and another person visited him in Long Lartin on February 11th, three weeks after he had first been placed on remand, so it cannot be true that nobody wanted to visit him.

So, where and when do you think VT killed Joanna, Paul, if it was not in either of their flats?

The DNA Was inconclusive , the only thing inconclusive was just where it came from there is no doubt it belongs to him and that is decisive and proven beyond doubt .

All the points raised have been proven inconclusive nothing more than fabricated, opinions and prove nothing all the proven evidence points to VT .....

My opinions on where or when he murdered her are irrelevant and as pointless as your opinions that he didn't murder her , its what the court, jury and professionals thought and have proved beyond all reasonable doubt ...

[Leonora]

And as there is no recording of this meeting with Brotherton, then we do not know what was said!!!!

Maybe the pertinent question to Brotherton should have been:

What is your profession???

I am sure Brotherton was careful enough to make sure that his conversations with the defendant WERE recorded, without telling him. We know that Amanda Knox's first conversation with her mother after her imprisonment was secretly recorded, and Brotherton, as you yourself found out recently, was a professional prison officer. He knew all the ropes. His testimony had all the hallmarks of being carefully "boilerplated" - of sentences cut out from a transcription and pasted together to deceive the jury, without his actually lying.

[Leonora]

Have you a transcript of what Brotherton actually said????

This is not a transcript, but I compiled it carefully from the reports in the news media and tweets from the court, some of which, disconcertingly, are no longer available.

“I was the chaplain at the prison where the defendant was held. I started to volunteer at the prison in January 2011. I have been a prison visitor since 1975. The prison was Long Lartin in Worcestershire.”

“My first meeting with the defendant was on 2nd February 2011. He was in the first cell of the prison’s health unit, which has a Perspex door, as he was under surveillance 24 hours a day. This was because of fears that he could kill himself.”

“We had a second meeting on 5th February 2011, lasting five minutes.” The witness did not recount what the two of them had talked about during their first two meetings. “He asked for paper and pencil, and asked to talk to me again in confidence.”

“At our third meeting, on 8th February 2011, he went to his cell to get his mug so he could have his water”. This was two days before Vincent Tabak’s 33rd birthday.

“I shook hands with him and asked him ‘How are you?’ He said ‘So-so. I am going to tell you something that will shock you’ I replied, ‘You tell me and we shall see’, or words to that effect”.

“He told me, ‘I am going to change my plea to guilty’. I asked him, ‘Is this about the young lady in Bristol?’”

The coyness of this question suggests that they had not previously talked about the fate of Joanna Yeates at all, nor about why Long Lartin’s most famous remand prisoner was there.

“He answered ‘Yes’ I asked him, ‘Are you sorry for what you have done?’ He replied ‘yes’”.

“He told me, ‘It is going to be difficult to tell my girlfriend’. I told him, ‘I would be willing to help you tell your girlfriend about what has happened. I advise you to talk to your solicitor’. He wanted to talk more, but I didn't want him to, as he was getting upset. ‘Would you like me to say a prayer with you?’ I offered. ‘No thank you’, he answered.”

“I told him that I would have to disclose our conversation. This was because he was not religious. It was not a religious confession. He replied: ‘Well I'm not going to tell you anything else’. There was a little bit of anger in his voice, he was nervous, and there was a tremble in his voice. I gave him a handwritten prayer, shook hands with him and left”.

[Leonora]

My opinions on where or when he murdered her are irrelevant and as pointless as your opinions that he didn't murder her , its what the court, jury and professionals thought and have proved beyond all reasonable doubt ...

Up to five members of the jury were not convinced that Vincent Tabak murdered Joanna. Those jurors who were convinced must have been swayed by her 43 injuries and the signs of a struggle described under oath by Greg Reardon - who told the court that he had tidied most of these up before anyone else arrived. Both the judge and Ann Reddrop (CPS) - professionals, both, declared that Vincent Tabak was a liar. I and most other posters would endorse this. His account of how he killed Joanna in her flat and then moved her from room to room, flat to flat, Clifton to Failand, has been shown on this thread to be a pack of inconsistent lies.

So where was she really killed? You have expressed some strong opinions, Paul, but your SUGGESTIONS for a more plausible scenario resulting in Joanna's death would make a welcome contribution.

[[...]]

I find new things all the time.... why was this not produced in court... It would have shown signs of a struggle and there should have been finger prints on it if it had been broken then put back in place..

[Angelo222]

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.

The trip to Asda was most probably an attempt to create an alibi.

[[...]]

The trip to Asda was most probably an attempt to create an alibi.

How would a trip to Asda create an alibi?????

[Angelo222]

How would a trip to Asda create an alibi?????

For someone who had just committed murder the first thought would have been to try to create an alibi so a trip to the nearest store with CCTV would fit the bill.

Tabak's admission in a statement given to his defence team was read out in court. He admitted killing Joanna but claimed he never set out to kill her. Everything else is merely a smokescreen. It will never be known if he killed her at her flat or outside her flat or somewhere else.

I don't know how anyone can claim he is innocent?



THE killer of Jo Yeates told his lawyers he pressed a hand around her throat
 for 20 seconds to stop her screaming, a court heard yesterday.

 But Dutchman Vincent Tabak, whose account of how he strangled Jo was revealed
 for the first time, said he used only “moderate force” and never intended to
 kill her.

 Referring to a statement Tabak, 33, made to his defence team, prosecutor Nigel
 Lickley QC, said: “The mechanism of death, as best the defendant can recall,
 is as follows.

 “The two were facing each other. He put one arm around her back with his hand
 in the middle of her back and she screamed. He put the other hand over her
 mouth which caused the screaming to cease.

 “He removed his hand from her mouth and the screaming continued.

 “He then put his hand around her throat — he believes it was the one that had
 been behind her back — and held it there for about 20 seconds.

 “He applied no more than moderate force on a scale of one to three. He did not
 intend death or serious injury.

 “His actions above killed Miss Yeates. The defendant accepts his actions were
 unlawful.” The court heard engineer Tabak, who admits manslaughter but
 denies murder, signed the defence statement on September 22.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/845725/he-held-jo-yeates-throat-for-20-seconds-to-stop-her-screaming/

[mrswah]

So, Greg stated, under oath , that there was a state of disorder inside the flat, which he tidied up.

This indicates, does it not, that whoever killed Joanna had been in her flat, whether or not she was killed there or elsewhere.

If that person was VT, where is the forensic evidence? There would have been a complete DNA profile, I would imagine,  and fingerprints. There would have been fingerprints on that front door that VT seemed so interested in.

Had there been good forensic evidence pointing to VT having been in Jo's flat, the prosecuting counsel would have used it as reliable evidence:  much more reliable than the enhanced stuff!!

[Leonora]

I don't know how anyone can claim he is innocent?

I don't know how anyone who has followed the posts on this thread from its beginning can still claim that Vincent Tabak is guilty of anything at all!!!

It should be obvious to you, Angelo222, that his own testimony given over two harrowing days in the witness box was a tissue of lies, full of serious discrepancies, put together by his own lawyers oh-so-obligingly to accommodate the Prosecution's case. Without the alleged confession to Peter "chaplain" Brotherton and the plea at the Old Bailey, that case falls apart completely.

I have tried very hard in my recent posts, by reference to the actual words spoken in court, to demonstrate that the alleged confession was a fake. "It was not a religious confession" - because it was not a confession at all!!! It was a clever piece of trickery, as one might expect from a brilliant barrister - who just happened to forget which side he was supposed to be on!

I have also tried to show that the plea was probably entered by an imposter or by a digital conjuring trick. I don't understand why this should be regarded as so unlikely, but then the onus is on those who react that way to suggest why Dr Tabak himself should have entered such a plea. After the trial, we learnt how astonishingly meager the evidence against him really was. If the CPS had more evidence, such as DNA from the house, they would certainly have produced it in court. But they didn't. So none of his lawyers should ever have allowed him to enter such a plea.

DC Karen Thomas, one of the officers who flew to Holland to interview Dr Tabak as a witness on 31 December 2010, while the landlord was still in custody, told the court that his behaviour and statements led her to make him a suspect. An employee of LGC Forensics, Lindsay Lennen, testified in court to traces of DNA, fibres and blood splatter linking the defendant and his car to the victim - but this evidence has been shown to be deeply questionable. Unlike the general public, LGC Forensics knew very well that there was no DNA evidence against the landlord, so they promptly entered into a collusive agreement with the Daily Mail to put pressure on the police to promote their proprietary enhancement process. This was revealed at the Leveson Inquiry.

As has been explained on this thread, many so-called facts were fed to the jury to persuade them that Joanna was killed in the flat on the Friday night. I would especially draw your attention to the hitherto unremarked witness who came all the way from Glasgow to tell the jury that she had examined the contents of Joanna's stomach to determine the time of death, but omitted to tell them what she had actually found! Qui s'accuse s'excuse.  Joanna was undoubtedly killed elsewhere, much later, when Dr Tabak had an alibi, so someone else did it.

[Angelo222]

I don't know how anyone who has followed the posts on this thread from its beginning can still claim that Vincent Tabak is guilty of anything at all!!!

It should be obvious to you, Angelo222, that his own testimony given over two harrowing days in the witness box was a tissue of lies, full of serious discrepancies, put together by his own lawyers oh-so-obligingly to accommodate the Prosecution's case. Without the alleged confession to Peter "chaplain" Brotherton and the plea at the Old Bailey, that case falls apart completely.

I have tried very hard in my recent posts, by reference to the actual words spoken in court, to demonstrate that the alleged confession was a fake. "It was not a religious confession" - because it was not a confession at all!!! It was a clever piece of trickery, as one might expect from a brilliant barrister - who just happened to forget which side  he was supposed to be on!

I have also tried to show that the plea was probably entered by an imposter or by a digital conjuring trick. I don't understand why this should be regarded as so unlikely, but then the onus is on those who react that way to suggest why Dr Tabak himself should have entered such a plea. After the trial, we learnt how astonishingly meager the evidence against him really was. If the CPS had more evidence, such as DNA from the house, they would certainly have produced it in court. But they didn't. So none of his lawyers should ever have allowed him to enter such a plea.

DC Karen Thomas, one of the officers who flew to Holland to interview Dr Tabak as a witness on 31 December 2010, while the landlord was still in custody, told the court that his behaviour and statements led her to make him a suspect. An employee of LGC Forensics, Lindsay Lennen, testified in court to traces of DNA, fibres and blood splatter linking the defendant and his car to the victim - but this evidence has been shown to be deeply questionable. Unlike the general public, LGC Forensics knew very well that there was no DNA evidence against the landlord, so they promptly entered into a collusive agreement with the Daily Mail to put pressure on the police to promote their proprietary enhancement process. This was revealed at the Leveson Inquiry.

As has been explained on this thread, many so-called facts were fed to the jury to persuade them that Joanna was killed in the flat on the Friday night. I would especially draw your attention to the hitherto unremarked witness who came all the way from Glasgow to tell the jury that she had examined the contents of Joanna's stomach to determine the time of death, but omitted to tell them what she had actually found! Qui s'accuse s'excuse.  Joanna was undoubtedly killed elsewhere, much later, when Dr Tabak had an alibi, so someone else did it.

There is nothing whatsoever contained within this thread which would make me doubt Tabak's conviction.

Your opinion is worthless when faced with Tabaks own plea of guilt.  Next you'll be claiming he was tortured into pleading guilty. 

[PaultheRed]

Firstly, yes, I know he made a confession, but how do we know he didn't make it under duress? .....How do you  know he did make it under duress ? just hearsay and your own thoughts