Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[John]

!

He had every chance then and as time goes on he still hasn't even mentioned the word conspiracy or challenged it. Unlike the 145 pictures. Both the legal team and himself did find a voice to try and stop that! He wasn't the incapable 'placid' Tabak then.

As John says he pinned his hopes on a lesser sentence. His google searches  in the very plea he went with also back this up!

I'm sure he was the shy unassuming respectable guy some claim him to be but his obsession appears to have overtaken his sensibilities the night he tried it on with Joanna.  The poor girl must have fought desperately for her life in the end.

I don't think he set out to kill her though according to what I have read but kill her he did and now suffers the consequences.

[jixy]

Yes I am sure he is. Even the nicest of people can kill. I agree to that he most likely didn't set out to kill her and his confusion over some facts is due to his panic taking over

In court he said he was sorry to Joanna's family and I do think he probably meant that too

[mrswah]

Jixy and John, do you think anyone is capable of murder?

One can be physically capable, as VT certainly was, and CJ probably was not, and I am certainly not (arthritic!!).

What about mentally and emotionally capable?  Do you think anyone could (under certain circumstances) kill someone, and then deal with the disposal of the body?

I don't think I could do it, I really dont.  Watching my mother dying was bad enough, and even then, I was offered a "last look " at the body at the undertaker's, and I couldn't take up the offer.

I find it really difficult to accept that VT could have done all that-----when he (apparently) had not done anything like it before.  I can't believe someone can go to ASDA with a body in the boot of his car, and appear totally calm, unless they had done it before----- some serial killers could do it, but I just can't believe VT could.

Posters have asked me why on earth Tanja's father  wouldn't have stood up for Vincent, had he thought him innocent.  I find it very difficult to understand why Tanja's parents did not see something "dodgy" about Vincent well before Joanna's murder, if he was the kind of man who could commit murder. 

Why didn't his work colleagues see something dodgy?  His friends?  The people whom he knew at university?

I have read up on a number of murder cases. In most cases, somebody has spotted something dodgy about the perp before he/she committed the murder.  Nobody seems to have done this in VT's case.

And, I really don't understand how he could have killed her in her flat, and left no forensics.

[Angelo222]

Jixy and John, do you think anyone is capable of murder?

One can be physically capable, as VT certainly was, and CJ probably was not, and I am certainly not (arthritic!!).

What about mentally and emotionally capable?  Do you think anyone could (under certain circumstances) kill someone, and then deal with the disposal of the body?

I don't think I could do it, I really dont.  Watching my mother dying was bad enough, and even then, I was offered a "last look " at the body at the undertaker's, and I couldn't take up the offer.

I find it really difficult to accept that VT could have done all that-----when he (apparently) had not done anything like it before.  I can't believe someone can go to ASDA with a body in the boot of his car, and appear totally calm, unless they had done it before----- some serial killers could do it, but I just can't believe VT could.

Posters have asked me why on earth Tanja's father  wouldn't have stood up for Vincent, had he thought him innocent.  I find it very difficult to understand why Tanja's parents did not see something "dodgy" about Vincent well before Joanna's murder, if he was the kind of man who could commit murder. 

Why didn't his work colleagues see something dodgy?  His friends?  The people whom he knew at university?

I have read up on a number of murder cases. In most cases, somebody has spotted something dodgy about the perp before he/she committed the murder.  Nobody seems to have done this in VT's case.

And, I really don't understand how he could have killed her in her flat, and left no forensics.

Most people are probably capable of pulling the trigger in certain circumstances.  It takes a certain type of fiend however to plan a cold blooded murder or murders like in the Jeremy Bamber case.

People can snap when pushed to extremes or get themselves into trouble for all sorts of reasons. Temporary insanity is a well recognised phenomena. Later they have pangs of guilt and greatly regret what they did, I believe Tabak falls into this category.

Killers don't have a sign on them warning people to beware, most might appear a little odd, reclusive, a loner etc.

Forensic evidence has to be found.  Unless there was a break in, forensic evidence can be difficult to find.  Given he strangled Joanna however I am surprised there wasn't more of his DNA found on her.

A question.  These multiple injuries which Joanna suffered, do we know what they were?  Could she have been driven over after she died in an attempt to conceal evidence?

[mrswah]

The public knew nothing about Joanna's 43 injuries until the trial.

After Joanna's body was found, and the case was deemed a murder inquiry, the police officer leading the inquiry held a press conference with a group of journalists, who were invited to ask questions.  One of the journalists asked whether or not Joanna had any injuries, and the police officer said not apart from having been strangled.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU

Nobody has ever said where the 43 injuries came from. I would guess that some would have come about as a result of  the rescue operation to recover her body, and from the fact that her body was frozen.  The bruises that she had would have been inflicted while she was alive (apparently, bruising can only be inflicted while a person is alive).

Driven over by a car?  Well, anything is possible, but I have never heard of that being suggested.

[John]

'Joanna Yeates suffered 43 injuries in desperate fight against strangler'



Tuesday 11 October 2011


Joanna Yeates fought a desperate battle for survival against her killer, a court heard today.

The 25-year-old landscape architect suffered 43 injuries, mostly to the neck, as she fought for her life in her Bristol flat, the jury was told.

Vincent Tabak, 33, who admits killing his next-door neighbour but denies murder, was bigger, stronger and more powerful.

He knew that he was strangling her to death but he carried on the fatal attack regardless, the court was told.

On the second day of the trial at Bristol crown court, Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting, told the jury of the forensic evidence discovered by a pathologist who examined Joanna's body over three days.

Of the 43 injuries 12 were to her head and neck, two to her trunk, 21 to her arms and four to her legs, said the prosecutor.

The pathologist concluded that Joanna died as a result of compression of her neck as Tabak strangled her with both hands.

"It was not instantaneous, it took some time for her to suffocate and force to be used to kill her," said Mr Lickley.

"Other injuries showed contact with a roughened surface while she was alive - a floor, the ground or a rough surface. Apart from the fear the attack caused her, it would have been painful. She would have resisted and struggled.

"The pathologist reveals that for at least one consistent period of time sufficient force was applied by the killer's hands to her neck to kill her. Her neck was held for long enough and hard enough to kill. There was a violent struggle by Joanna to try and survive. Despite that Tabak continued to squeeze her neck to kill her."

The court heard that Joanna's blood alcohol level was 67 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, showing she had drunk between one and a half and two and a half pints of cider and was lower than the drink drive limit of 80/100.

Tabak, a Dutch engineer lived in the next door flat to Joanna and her boyfriend Greg Riordan in the Clifton area of Bristol. She was last seen on her way home after pre-Christmas drinks in a Bristol pub.

Her body was found by dog walkers in a lane in North Somerset on Christmas Day. Tabak had taken her dead body in the boot of his Renault Megane and stopped at an Asda supermarket to buy rock salt, beer and crisps, the court heard.

Later he texted his girlfriend Tanja Morson to say that he was "bored". Tabak has pleaded guilty to manslaughter but not guilty to murder.
The case continues.
Her chest was exposed and Tabak's DNA found on her body, court told

Vincent Tabak's DNA was discovered on Joanna Yeates's chest, the court was told.

Her pink T-shirt was pushed up and her chest exposed outside her bra when her body was found, the jury heard. But after his arrest Tabak claimed the forensic scientists had deliberately contaminated the evidence for money from the press.

It was only a month later that he told a Salvation Army chaplain in prison what he described as "shocking" news that he was going to plead guilty. He formally entered his guilty plea to manslaughter in May.

Nigel Lickley, prosecuting, said: "This means that he accepts that he unlawfully killed Joanna, not by accident."

He told the jury: "You have to determine his state of mind when he killed Joanna Yeates, including the time leading up to her death and what he wanted to do when he held her throat for long enough and with sufficient force to kill her.

"He was in control. He could have stopped, but he didn't. He didn't panic or lose control at that time. He was controlled and calculating."

The court was told that Tabak confessed to Peter Brotherton, a voluntary chaplain for the Salvation Army who offered guidance and pastoral care to prisoners.

"On 8 February Tabak told him he had something to tell him and it would shock him," said Mr Lickley.
"He said: ' I'm going to plead guilty for the crime I have done.'

"The chaplain asked him: 'Was that the young lady in Bristol?'

"Tabak said 'yeah'. The chaplain asked: 'Are you sure?" Tabak said he was."

Defence counsel William Clegg QC told the court that Joanna first saw her killer on the night she was strangled through her kitchen window.

Screams heard by partygoers in the road were not Joanna's, he said. Mr Clegg said the couple on the way to a party were standing too far away from the alleged murder scene.

"The defence are going to suggest that it is by no means certain that the scream that was heard was connected to this event at all because of the distance involved and the timing," he said.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-suffered-43-injuries-in-desperate-fight-against-strangler-6452369.html

[jixy]

It is awful to see the break down of Joanna's injuries but does clarify what those injuries were.  heartbreaking to imagine anyone fighting for their life

[mrswah]

Has anyone watched the video of the press conference that I put up?

Does anyone have any idea why DCI Jones would have told the press that Joanna had no injuries?

The public knew nothing about the injuries until the trial started: I only hope that somebody had warned Jo's family.

[John]

Has anyone watched the video of the press conference that I put up?

Does anyone have any idea why DCI Jones would have told the press that Joanna had no injuries?

The public knew nothing about the injuries until the trial started: I only hope that somebody had warned Jo's family.

He obviously was misinformed.

[mrswah]

Well, as I always say, anything is possible, but I find it hard to believe that a senior policeman leading a murder investigation would be misinformed about the results of a post-mortem examination on the victim.

Even if he had been misinformed at the time of that press conference, or did not yet have a written report,  surely he would have discovered the truth at some time before the trial.

I can understand him not wanting the media to know too much early on, as some reporters/journalists do "go to town" with salacious reporting (as we later saw with Christopher Jefferies ).  it is also possible that some might have asked "awkward" questions,  such as whether the rescue operation was responsible for some of Joanna's injuries. The complicated rescue operation, after all, was barely reported, even though some journalists/reporters would have been hanging around  at the scene and would have  got a glimpse of all that fire and rescue equipment.


The injuries pointed to a violent attack on Joanna. Weirdly, the only two men arrested in connection with the crime had no previous form for violence. I'm sure we all would have heard about it if they had done.

At the time of the trial, many, if not all,  newspapers carried stories about the 43 injuries, and this probably influenced a lot of people into believing that VT was guilty of murder.  I dare say it influenced the jury too, although Judge Field, in his summing up,  did direct the jury to concentrate only on Joanna's bruises, as those were known to have been inflicted before her death.

[Eleanor]

It was all such a mess, and some terrible things were said by The Media about entirely innocent people.

It is of no wonder to me that this all stopped at the arrest of Vincent Tabak.  The Media did seriously have to stop.  They had all gone too far.

I presume that the DNA of Vincent Tabak found on the chest of Joanna Yeats was found on her naked chest.  Or was it not?

[mrswah]

The media did not stop its salacious reporting after Vincent Tabak was arrested.  In fact, after he was convicted, they really went to town: here is one example

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeatess-killer-vincent-tabak-88630

I read half a dozen such articles yesterday, from a variety of newspapers.  Although VT had been convicted of murder by the time this stuff was printed, and so, in the eyes of the world, was not an innocent man, it still was not necessary to print any of these articles.  Why?

Because there is no evidence that any of it is true.  Allegations about escorts did not form part of the trial, and the police never investigated the claims of any of these ladies.  There is no firm evidence that the man described in any of these stories was actually VT.  There are vast numbers of tall men with foreign accents around!!  In the article above , the man described did not even wear glasses, and , apparently, he wore fancy shoes.

It should not have been very difficult for the editor of the newspaper concerned to check his/her facts, and find out whether VT sometimes wore contact lenses, and whether or not he had a penchant for fancy shoes! 

As for the question about the DNA, I do not know exactly where it was (apparently) found.  My principal concern is that there should not have been any need to rely on enhanced DNA at all. If VT killed Joanna in either of their flats, or in Tanja's car, there should have been plenty of good forensic evidence available.  The fact that there wasn't is one of the main factors (or perhaps the main factor) why I don't believe it was VT who killed Joanna.

[John]

As for the question about the DNA, I do not know exactly where it was (apparently) found.  My principal concern is that there should not have been any need to rely on enhanced DNA at all. If VT killed Joanna in either of their flats, or in Tanja's car, there should have been plenty of good forensic evidence available.  The fact that there wasn't is one of the main factors (or perhaps the main factor) why I don't believe it was VT who killed Joanna.

I have much sympathy with those comments given the circumstances of the crime.  Had someone fought with her and strangled her one would think there should be all sorts of forensic evidence available.  Since there isn't, one could not be blamed for thinking that the perpetrator went prepared and it was not the accidental killing it was made out to be?

[mrswah]

So, supposing the perpetrator did go prepared, and that perpetrator was VT.  He killed Jo in her flat, as he said, created all the disorder in the flat, and then had to rid the flat of his DNA and fingerprints. 

After all, there can't have been any: had there been, the prosecution would have used that evidence. Why rely on enhanced DNA when you have the full profile, and fingerprints?

We know that VT went to Asda some time that evening (we don't know exactly when either, since the timestamp is missing from the CCTV-----why?????  And, what happened to his receipt from Asda, which would have had the time on it????? There must have been a receipt. It isn't necessarily  easy to see from CCTV what someone is buying. The police would have wanted to check that he had bought beer, crisps and rock salt, rather than bleach, cleaning rags, etc).
 
  We also know that he picked Tanja up from the coach, and they were caught on CCTV together afterwards.  Did he have enough time to remove all traces of himself from Jo's flat, particularly if he also had to dispose of Jo's body, and then (presumably) shower and change his clothes.

I shouldn't think, for one moment, that VT was experienced , either in the disposing of bodies, or in the cleaning of forensics. The fact that he is a big bloke is neither here nor there. He would have needed to know what he was doing in order to leave no trace of himself at a murder scene.

[mrswah]

it was not the accidental killing it was made out to be?


No, I don't believe it was an accidental killing. It was a violent attack. It seems this is how the jury saw it too.

The difference is, that most people believe VT did it, and I don't.