Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[Leonora]

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. 

(1) On being arrested and taken to the police station, in a state of shock and distress, he was stripped naked, groped, and photographed by a complete stranger, nurse Ruth Booth-Pearson. I am sure you would feel excruciatingly humiliated if that happened to you.

(2) He was not allowed to wear his own clothes again. For the next ten days, he was forced to wear scruffy clothes from goodness knows where.

(3) He was deprived of his prescription glasses until after his second court appearance, so he could barely see who was interrogating him. He was provided with plastic off-the-shelf glasses instead. Fact!!!

(4) He didn't sleep a wink on his 5th night in custody in Bristol because all the other prisoners knew he was there and he was terrified of being beaten up.

(5) He was then moved to Gloucester prison, and one or two days later to Long Lartin Prison, which specialises in inmates who are especially violent - not like the lads in Bristol. Could he choose his cell mates? Of course he couldn't. Fact!!! Any hint that he wouldn't do what he was told, or plead as he should, and he could be threatened with a serial killer as a cell mate.

(6) Long Lartin also specialises in foreign prisoners who cannot be deported for fear of torture. Fact!!!

(7) In gross violation of the rules for remand prisoners, he wasn't allowed any visits by his family nor friends until the day of Joanna's funeral. Fact!!!

(8) He was tricked into betraying confidences to a fake chaplain whom "Nine" on this thread has discovered was actually a senior officer from another prison. This person  threatened "to tell his girlfriend" about the porn that the police alleged he had been viewing on his computer and the prostitutes they alleged he had been patronising.

[mrswah]

Christopher Jefferies told of what it was like being in custody:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25625572

Fortunately, he did not get as far as prison.  I have to assume that things were even worse for VT in custody, since he did.

[Leonora]

Christopher Jefferies told of what it was like being in custody:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25625572

Fortunately, he did not get as far as prison.  I have to assume that things were even worse for VT in custody, since he did.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have also described graphically how they were stripped naked and examined by strangers, in their respective published accounts of their experiences of the Italian criminal justice system. Each of them had been in custody more than 24 hours before they were humiliated in this way.

[Leonora]

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

But Vincent Tabak NEVER actually made a confession. That is what we have been deceived into believing. However, if you read the words actually spoken in court, it was only the QCs who made that allegation in court, and the press and the jury took them at face value. The so-called chaplain NEVER said that the prisoner had told him he had killed Joanna. He never even said the defendant had "confessed". The only time he used the word "confession" was when he told the court, "It was not a religious confession". We were all disgusted by the way he used this as an excuse to betray the prisoner's confidence - but we were all duped. The important word in this remark was "not".

All the stuff about telling his superiors was mere window dressing to justify making this statement. What is more, it would probably not have worked in Dutch, but only in English. "Nine" may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Dutch word for a confession to a priest is quite different from the Dutch word for the confession of a crime.

It was Counsel for the Defence who, in cross-examining the "chaplain", spoke the words that deceived us all into believing that the defendant had "confessed" within a few days of his incarceration.

Turn over every other stone in this case, every other witness, every other statement, and you will find rottenness and deceit in every other instance.

[Leonora]

Murder is not a game, but a serious matter. Arresting one innocent man might be regarded as a misfortune; to convict a second innocent man might look like carelessness. These facts reveal something MUCH WORSE than mere carelessness.

I would draw attention to the two or three persons whom Christopher Jefferies saw and heard on Joanna's front path. The main source for this incident is his 2nd witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry. He told the police about these persons within an hour or two of watching the first TV appeal by Joanna's parents, because something that someone said in that broadcast didn't accord with something or someone he had seen.

Why did the police never react to his statement reporting these persons? They can hardly have failed to be of interest to the police. Any of them may have been the killer, a witness, or Joanna herself. The police never made any public appeal for these specific persons to come forward. Nor did they ever explain publicly why they had never appealed for them to come forward. Did they eliminate them? Did the landlord identify any of them?

Numerous documentaries have been made about this case, and all of them turned a blind eye to the presence of these mysterious persons seen by the landlord, in the vicinity of a crime scene, close to the time of the crime. How could they ignore such an obvious cover-up?

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Angelo222]

But Vincent Tabak NEVER actually made a confession. That is what we have been deceived into believing. However, if you read the words actually spoken in court, it was only the QCs who made that allegation in court, and the press and the jury took them at face value. The so-called chaplain NEVER said that the prisoner had told him he had killed Joanna. He never even said the defendant had "confessed". The only time he used the word "confession" was when he told the court, "It was not a religious confession". We were all disgusted by the way he used this as an excuse to betray the prisoner's confidence - but we were all duped. The important word in this remark was "not".

All the stuff about telling his superiors was mere window dressing to justify making this statement. What is more, it would probably not have worked in Dutch, but only in English. "Nine" may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Dutch word for a confession to a priest is quite different from the Dutch word for the confession of a crime.

It was Counsel for the Defence who, in cross-examining the "chaplain", spoke the words that deceived us all into believing that the defendant had "confessed" within a few days of his incarceration.

Turn over every other stone in this case, every other witness, every other statement, and you will find rottenness and deceit in every other instance.

You have a curious way of twisting things, Tabak did confess to killing Joanna but called it accidental, thus why his admission to manslaughter.

By the way I have removed your claims that Tabak was tortured in prison as they are a total nonsense.  We have very strict rules here so I would be careful who you libel in future.  No further warning will be given.

[Leonora]

You have a curious way of twisting things, Tabak did confess to killing Joanna but called it accidental, thus why his admission to manslaughter.

By the way I have removed your claims that Tabak was tortured in prison as they are a total nonsense.  We have very strict rules here so I would be careful who you libel in future.  No further warning will be given.

Thank you for reading my post with sufficient care to redact just the words that you considered to be in breach of the rules for the forum. The facts that you left standing speak for themselves.

I have taken care not to twist anything on this thread. All the twisting was done by Counsel for the Defence, not to mention those witnesses for the Prosecution who showed such economy with the truth - such as DC Karen Thomas, who flew to Schiphol, and filled 40 pages of her notebook with notes on the interview with Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend, but never explained to the court how they could have talked about the direction in which the landlord's car was facing for the best part of 6 hours!

You are putting together two separate episodes separated by eight months. Vincent Tabak's conversations with the so-called chaplain (who unknown to the defendant was actually a senior officer from another prison) took place in February 2011. Not until the trial in October did anyone talk about a "confession", and when they did so, it was to make a manipulative misrepresentation of one of these February conversations.

Later during the trial, Dr Tabak went into the witness box himself, on two consecutive days. He answered many detailed questions from both Counsel about an encounter he claimed he had had with Joanna, about the circumstances that he claimed resulted in her death, and about his claim to have transported of her body. I would call this an "admission", to distinguish it from the so-called "confession".

The only reason why you and other people believe in Vincent Tabak's guilt is because of the trial and the reports of it in the media. When scrutiny of these, including his own testimony, shows that so many of the proceedings were phoney, and lack the most fundamental requirements for credibility, then I don't understand why you cannot see that there is no longer any basis for believing Dr Tabak to be guilty at all.

[Angelo222]

Thank you for reading my post with sufficient care to redact just the words that you considered to be in breach of the rules for the forum. The facts that you left standing speak for themselves.

I have taken care not to twist anything on this thread. All the twisting was done by Counsel for the Defence, not to mention those witnesses for the Prosecution who showed such economy with the truth - such as DC Karen Thomas, who flew to Schiphol, and filled 40 pages of her notebook with notes on the interview with Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend, but never explained to the court how they could have talked about the direction in which the landlord's car was facing for the best part of 6 hours!

You are putting together two separate episodes separated by eight months. Vincent Tabak's conversations with the so-called chaplain (who unknown to the defendant was actually a senior officer from another prison) took place in February 2011. Not until the trial in October did anyone talk about a "confession", and when they did so, it was to make a manipulative misrepresentation of one of these February conversations.

Later during the trial, Dr Tabak went into the witness box himself, on two consecutive days. He answered many detailed questions from both Counsel about an encounter he claimed he had had with Joanna, about the circumstances that he claimed resulted in her death, and about his claim to have transported of her body. I would call this an "admission", to distinguish it from the so-called "confession".

The only reason why you and other people believe in Vincent Tabak's guilt is because of the trial and the reports of it in the media. When scrutiny of these, including his own testimony, shows that so many of the proceedings were phoney, and lack the most fundamental requirements for credibility, then I don't understand why you cannot see that there is no longer any basis for believing Dr Tabak to be guilty at all.

Not so, the reason I believe him guilty is because he signed a statement admitting killing her and the fact that only his DNA was found on her.  I'm afraid all the rest of it is merely semantics, water under the bridge.

[John]

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have also described graphically how they were stripped naked and examined by strangers, in their respective published accounts of their experiences of the Italian criminal justice system. Each of them had been in custody more than 24 hours before they were humiliated in this way.

That's what happens when you are remanded in custody, people hide the strangest things in their body cavities.

[John]

Angelo222 my question is... If Dr Vincent Tabak' is in court having as what they say... confessed to this crime... If they were trying to prove Manslaughter AND not Murder...

Why was there no medical assesment given in court.. or any mitigating circumstances that you would usually associate with a Manslaughter Plea????

It's this type of inconstistency that leads people to question what happened to Dr Vincent Tabak....

Also Angelo222.... Do you think the treatment of Dr Vincent Tabak was fair ??? The fact he wasn't given access to friends or family for almost 25 days from his arrest... Surely that cannot be right!!!

All seems a bit strange, a prisoner is entitled to see family members and lawyers.  Maybe Tabak refused to see friends and family as was his right?

[jixy]

You have a curious way of twisting things, Tabak did confess to killing Joanna but called it accidental, thus why his admission to manslaughter.

By the way I have removed your claims that Tabak was tortured in prison as they are a total nonsense.  We have very strict rules here so I would be careful who you libel in future.  No further warning will be given.

I agree. Sally Ramage says . He thought they would try him for manslaughter, as he has maintained with excruciating honesty throughout.

[Eleanor]

I agree. Sally Ramage says . He thought they would try him for manslaughter, as he has maintained with excruciating honesty throughout.

So he accidentally Manslaughtered her.  He certainly attacked her.  How very sad for her.

[jixy]

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

So i question how they got him to sign this statement??????  Because they obviously didn't have any evidence against him!!!!!

once again Nine you miss the point completely. Even Sally who you like to quote says he was truthful throughout and expected a manslaughter charge which fits with his google searches. Whatever else happened DOES NOT change the fact he killed her!

[jixy]

So he accidentally Manslaughtered her.  He certainly attacked her.  How very sad for her.

Very sad Eleanor and didn't warrant the awful comments that were posted about her earlier today. Thankfully they seem to have been removed!

[Eleanor]

Very sad Eleanor and didn't warrant the awful comments that were posted about her earlier today. Thankfully they seem to have been removed!

Yes, they were removed, twice.  And they were disgusting.  I am simply not having that.

There isn't much doubt in my mind that something went seriously wrong when Tabak approach Joanna for whatever reasons, and God knows why he thought he could do that.  That in itself was awful.

And thence killed her to shut her up because she was hollering.

The man is dangerous, and is now precisely where he should be.

Murder?  Manslaughter?  She is still dead.