Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[Leonora]

Since Vincent Tabak is not appealing his conviction there isn't much media interest in the case any more.  Done and dusted as far as most are concerned.

Confronted with the most extraordinary behaviour ever of an eminent defence barrister in a murder trial, the behaviour of the media itself has also been inexplicable. Yet you are apparently comfortable with this.

1. The defence QC failed to discredit a single prosecution witness, many of whom were undoubtedly not telling the whole truth. Yet you are evidently content with this.

2. The defence QC lost no opportunity to discredit his own client and invite him to incriminate himself under cross-examination. Yet you see nothing unusual in this.

3. The jury was told that the defendant had confessed to a prison chaplain. It was grounds for a mistrial that they were not told that the witness purporting to be a chaplain was in fact a senior officer from another prison. Nowhere in his testimony did he actually state that the defendant had told him that he had killed the victim. However, in an ingenious play of words during cross-examination, the defence QC allowed the court and the press to believe that the defendant had made a confession.

4. The defendant at no time protested that he had made no such confession, nor even replaced this defence QC. Yet you see nothing curious in this.

5. The jury was not told about the 4 pumping engines and 23 fire officers needed to recover the body from the spot where the defendant claimed he had deposited the victim. Yet you see no grounds for an appeal.

6. No forensic evidence put the killing of Joanna Yeates in the flat where the court was told it took place. Obviously, she was killed somewhere else. Yet you see no grounds for a mistrial.

7. After the trial, the CPS made much of the internet research carried out by Vincent Tabak, which was evidently presented to the jury in a 1300 page timeline. Yet the witness who is supposed to have compiled this timeline did not testify to it in court, as she spoke only to confirm the identity of the web pages and films shown on the video screens.

Your eagerness to remove well-meaning and sincere posts from contributors who are trying to obey your rules surely merits an explanation?

[[...]]

And i'll add to that:..

The clothes she was obviously found in differ greatly to what she was last seen wearing...

Eyebrows should raise!!!  Timelines will obviously change with this information, I also bear in mind that the prosecution made reference to Joanna Yeates being settled for the evening... Was this his admission he knew she had time to change her clothing, switch the TV on and get ready for cooking or leaving?????

[Leonora]

From "Law Society Gazette", Thursday 3rd November 2011 – by Catherine Baksi, interviewing instructing solicitor Ian Kelcey

Thoughts on the case: ‘I knew from an early stage that this would be a difficult and tactically challenging case. We had to conduct it with a degree of secrecy in the office and make sure everything was securely locked away. The pressure on all of us was 24/7. If [the pornography evidence] had gone in, there is no doubt it would have prejudiced his right to a fair trial. The judge conducted the case impeccably. Tabak can have no complaints about the fairness of the process.

‘This case involved a very narrow issue – what was Tabak’s intent in those fatal few moments?’

Kelcey said the defence pathologist showed there was limited pressure on the neck, and death could have occurred within 15-20 seconds possibly from heart failure. ‘While the prosecution had said there were 43 injuries on Miss Yeates’ body, the defence pathologist showed that many of these were caused after her death.’

Dealing with the media: ‘Of the cases I’ve done, this has had the most intense media interest. I was very concerned that the media had overstepped the mark on a number of occasions. We regularly had to correct inaccurately reported details and made several complaints to the attorney general regarding contempt of court.

The media attention was too intrusive – photographers were taking pictures of jurors and everyone in the queue to get into the court. I think it was a mistake for the local authority and the police to put up barriers that gave the press a grandstand. Questions need to be asked, not only about the media’s behaviour, but about how some information got into their hands in the first place.’

[[...]]

‘This case involved a very narrow issue – what was Tabak’s intent in those fatal few moments?’

Narrow issue???? what happened to checking timelines etc.. to see if it was even possible???

Where did it say in court that she died from 'Heart Faliure"???

So they went to trial not having all the evidence (1300 pages of)and where only interested in:... Intent!!


15-20 seconds... is an awfully short time..... Is that why the Police originally asked if he tried to revive her because she was unconcious????

Tabak can have no complaints about the fairness of the process.

Well ... I disagree.....

‘I knew from an early stage that this would be a difficult and tactically challenging case. We had to conduct it with a degree of secrecy in the office and make sure everything was securely locked away.

So who advised him on his plea at the Old Bailey????? 

Tactically challenging????   What were the tactics...... Let him sit there and take it????????

My God... cannot see any defence tactics here????? "they just slapped him daft (IMO)...

[mrswah]

Where did it say in court that she died from 'Heart Faliure"???



 

See here:

www.ibtimes.co.uk/237256

[mrswah]

From "Law Society Gazette", Thursday 3rd November 2011 – by Catherine Baksi, interviewing instructing solicitor Ian Kelcey

We had to conduct it with a degree of secrecy in the office and make sure everything was securely locked away. The pressure on all of us was 24/7..

Why?

Locked away from whom?

[mrswah]

Confronted with the most extraordinary behaviour ever of an eminent defence barrister in a murder trial, the behaviour of the media itself has also been inexplicable. Yet you are apparently comfortable with this.

1. The defence QC failed to discredit a single prosecution witness, many of whom were undoubtedly not telling the whole truth. Yet you are evidently content with this.

2. The defence QC lost no opportunity to discredit his own client and invite him to incriminate himself under cross-examination. Yet you see nothing unusual in this.

3. The jury was told that the defendant had confessed to a prison chaplain. It was grounds for a mistrial that they were not told that the witness purporting to be a chaplain was in fact a senior officer from another prison. Nowhere in his testimony did he actually state that the defendant had told him that he had killed the victim. However, in an ingenious play of words during cross-examination, the defence QC allowed the court and the press to believe that the defendant had made a confession.

4. The defendant at no time protested that he had made no such confession, nor even replaced this defence QC. Yet you see nothing curious in this.

5. The jury was not told about the 4 pumping engines and 23 fire officers needed to recover the body from the spot where the defendant claimed he had deposited the victim. Yet you see no grounds for an appeal.

6. No forensic evidence put the killing of Joanna Yeates in the flat where the court was told it took place. Obviously, she was killed somewhere else. Yet you see no grounds for a mistrial.

7. After the trial, the CPS made much of the internet research carried out by Vincent Tabak, which was evidently presented to the jury in a 1300 page timeline. Yet the witness who is supposed to have compiled this timeline did not testify to it in court, as she spoke only to confirm the identity of the web pages and films shown on the video screens.

Your eagerness to remove well-meaning and sincere posts from contributors who are trying to obey your rules surely merits an explanation?

Despite Mr Clegg's cross examination of the "chaplain", the media and everybody else knew months before the trial that VT had pleaded guilty to killing JY.  Most people would take that as meaning he had confessed----very few would stop and realise that saying you have done something is different from saying you will say you have done something!

VT's testimony is full of lies, eg the claim that he carried out the murder in JY's flat, touched the TV remote, switched off the oven, etc etc-------------but no forensics!   Also, the presence of all that fire and rescue equipment and all those staff suggest that he did not leave the body where he said he did (or where the dog walkers claimed to have found it).

So, if VT can lie throughout his testimony (don't forget, his story of the "pass gone wrong" was very similar to a "possible scenario" outlined in the Daily Mirror ten days before his arrest), why should we necessarily believe in his guilty plea?

[Leonora]

See here:

www.ibtimes.co.uk/237256

It's a small point, but this article is based on the Prosecution QC's and the Defence QC's closing speeches and it is dated 25 October 2011 - before the jury retired. Yet the picture caption states "Vincent Tabak enjoyed violent pornographic film videos" - an allegation that was not made public until after the jury had delivered their verdict.

[mrswah]

It's a small point, but this article is based on the Prosecution QC's and the Defence QC's closing speeches and it is dated 25 October 2011 - before the jury retired. Yet the picture caption states "Vincent Tabak enjoyed violent pornographic film videos" - an allegation that was not made public until after the jury had delivered their verdict.

Well spotted.   Hm-------interesting. Was the photo and the caption joined onto the article after the trial was over, I wonder?  If not, somebody leaked something early----------.

[jixy]

A bit rude to comment about forum rules. Firstly no one makes you post on here and secondly it's not the moderators fault tabak admitted killing Joanna and never tried to appeal! His story may be full of holes to you but his lies could very well be his attempt to save himself from a life sentence and you don't know that isn't true!

[[...]]

it's not the moderators fault tabak admitted killing Joanna and never tried to appeal!

So who's FAULT was it!!!!!!!!!!!!

[[...]]

Well spotted.   Hm-------interesting. Was the photo and the caption joined onto the article after the trial was over, I wonder?  If not, somebody leaked something early----------.

How is it even possible?????

The jury have been sent home and told to come back tomorrow at 10:30am for judge's summing up.

The prosecution....

Lickley also insisted that when Tabak went over the Yeates' flat in Clifton, Bristol on 17 December 2010, he had sex on his mind, explaining to the jury: "The whole incident is linked to sex. This is a killing linked to sex."

The information....

Vincent Tabak enjoyed violent pornographic film videos

So how does this stand???? If it was possible for the Jury to know about the alledged Violent Pornography??

Prejudical????

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vincent-tabak-jo-yeates-joanna-yeates-trail-murder-investigation-court-case-walked-away-any-time-sto-237256


Vincent Tabak Trial: Joanna Yeates was Killed for Sex
October 25, 2011 15:49 BST

EDIT:.... How can they state that when it wasn't (A):... Proven
                                                                      (B):.... Before the summing up and jury verdict????

[jixy]

My comments were not actually to you nine but in answer to your question about whose fault it was that has to be down to tabak

[[...]]

My comments were not actually to you nine but in answer to your question about whose fault it was that has to be down to tabak

I know... I was replying to the what's fault part....

I think he was ill advised....

[[...]]

Despite Mr Clegg's cross examination of the "chaplain", the media and everybody else knew months before the trial that VT had pleaded guilty to killing JY.  Most people would take that as meaning he had confessed----very few would stop and realise that saying you have done something is different from saying you will say you have done something!

VT's testimony is full of lies, eg the claim that he carried out the murder in JY's flat, touched the TV remote, switched off the oven, etc etc-------------but no forensics!   Also, the presence of all that fire and rescue equipment and all those staff suggest that he did not leave the body where he said he did (or where the dog walkers claimed to have found it).

So, if VT can lie throughout his testimony (don't forget, his story of the "pass gone wrong" was very similar to a "possible scenario" outlined in the Daily Mirror ten days before his arrest), why should we necessarily believe in his guilty plea?

We shouldn't Mrswah....  And the fact that the Guilty Plea was so public before the Trial in October would already put in the minds of a jury that they didn't really need to take much heed to what was being said..

How much did these Jury members read before the trial??? where they on any forums in relation to the case???

How unbiased were they???? 

Ordinarily most jurors would not have an incline of a case... but as this one had so much publicity, they couldn't fail to have preconceived ideas about it...

Everything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak and his incarcaration at the time, was timed to perfection with whatever was happening with Joanna Yeates... IE:... her burial , which coincidentally was when Dr Vincent Tabak first recieved visiting from family and girlfriend...

With a public having sympathy for the family and their tragedy..( which is only natural).. It would then lend to why people wouldn't give two figs about whether Dr Vincent Tabak had any fair treatment by this point...

Lets not forget, the sobbing girl story that probably lead to everyones imagination running wild, thinking that they must have something on Dr Vincent Tabak or they wouldn't have charged him.... (so sympathy for him at this point was ZERO..) No proof in that pudding!!!!

They had nothing , but held him on some cock and bull story (IMO)...