Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[jixy]

I agree totally Nine. Not a place we should be taking this discussion. Im sure we would all feel very similar should this happen to us.

The death penalty in never the answer even though is grief and angry I understand why they could think that

 

[Leonora]

To me it look more like it is a Black and White CCTV Video.. with a colour hew added!!

That is what you get when you photofinish the hue (chroma) in a colour image to zero, or close to zero, but don't change the mode from colour to b&w.

[Leonora]

I try to stay away from the family as much as possible... I believe it's not fair to make judgements on people who have lost a loved one in tragic circumstances..

That is my point. The Tabak family have also lost a loved one in tragic circumstances. The Yeates family would have been advised to stay away from criticising them.

Since they showed so much dignity in the early days of the investigation, I suspect that Joanna's parents have been manipulated into making the kind of pronouncements that suit the police and the Daily Mail in order to distract public attention from the self-evident falseness of the entire case against Vincent Tabak. Obviously, both the police and the Daily Mail know all about the four fire engines needed to recover the body - yet they don't seem to have mentioned these to Joanna's parents.

[[...]]

That is my point. The Tabak family have also lost a loved one in tragic circumstances. The Yeates family would have been advised to stay away from criticising them.

I totally agree leonora.... The Tabak family could at the very least have him over in Holland so they can visit him...

[Leonora]

There is more weight to the people who believe in his guilt as Tabak too says exactly the same! no conspiracy theories offered nothing

One of the few correct things the judge told the jury was that they should base their verdict on the evidence alone. If I sat on a jury, one of my biggest problems would be my irritation with other members who might behave as you have done on this thread - namely, to insist that the defendant is guilty throughout, without any regard to the judge's words.

You refuse to consider the evidence - or rather, the lack of it. There was no evidence against Vincent Tabak.

You refuse to consider the manipulation of the jury by the defence. No normal person would have been able to avoid being taken in by the cross-examination of the "chaplain" within the short period of the trial.

Innocence or guilt is not a matter of "belief" - it is a matter of EVIDENCE (as the judge said). All your posts are based on BELIEF.

[mrswah]

Don't forget the ski sock! Why on earth would Joanna have been wearing ski socks on a day when she was going to be indoors nearly all day and, furthermore, in a warm crowded pub for 2 hours?

It's the removal of the colour component from the CCTV clips in the Bristol Ram that proves that the Prosecution didn't want anyone to see the colour of the clothes she was wearing. We can be sure that originally these CCTV clips were in colour. Just as we can sure there were timestamps on the Asda clips - and that these have been deliberately made illegible.

So yes, of course Joanna changed her clothes - and of course Joanna was still alive when Vincent Tabak collected his girlfriend from the coach.

I agree with everything you say regarding the CCTV.

It is likely that Joanna changed her clothes, but we cannot be sure, IMO.

We also cannot be sure that she was still alive when VT collected his girlfriend from the coach-----although she may well have been.

As for the ski socks, Joanna might well have worn these if her boots were slightly too big-----I have borrowed my hubby's thick socks in that situation!!

[jixy]

One of the few correct things the judge told the jury was that they should base their verdict on the evidence alone. If I sat on a jury, one of my biggest problems would be my irritation with other members who might behave as you have done on this thread - namely, to insist that the defendant is guilty throughout, without any regard to the judge's words.

You refuse to consider the evidence - or rather, the lack of it. There was no evidence against Vincent Tabak.

You refuse to consider the manipulation of the jury by the defence. No normal person would have been able to avoid being taken in by the cross-examination of the "chaplain" within the short period of the trial.

Innocence or guilt is not a matter of "belief" - it is a matter of EVIDENCE (as the judge said). All your posts are based on BELIEF.

You talk about no normal person, anyone posting on here is connected to the family etc

My last comment to you is we as in the people who believe in his guilt all AGREE with Tabak himself so how is it that WE are wrong but everything YOU post whether real or make believe is acceptable?

[jixy]

AS for saying sorry for saying a man who himself says he is guilty and I agree, that just isn't gonna happen!

[jixy]

I totally agree leonora.... The Tabak family could at the very least have him over in Holland so they can visit him...

Maybe Nine he told them the truth and they believe it and don't want to visit him

[John]

It's a myth??? These are peoples lives you are dealing with!!!

Well.... there's always something to make you smile.... Just sitting there feeling that everything will be done for your case if.......... You're Rich!!!!!!

Prosecution:... 15
Defence:........ love..


There's an admission if ever I heard one...

So Dr Vincent Tabak must have received a base metal service!!!! (IMO) ( he had legal aid)

Didn't even manage the bronze standard...  So... how much Investigation took place to prove the Timelines???
To prove she had changed her clothes..??
A demonstration to see if it was possible....??
Witness's for the defence
Good Character witness's
Cross examination of the prosecution??
The hundred questions??

OMG... the list is endless......

What does a Base metal service actually pay for???????  WOW... maybe lawyers should produce a pamphlet on what one gets for a Base Metal Service

Starting rates: Two beads, I will answer the telephone
                      Three Beads,  I will say hello
                     
                      A shell will get you a response within 3 days excluding weekends/bank holidays
                      But if you chuck in a couple of groats I might arrange a meeting

                      And our deluxe offer of the week, because we're having a Bonanza sale:

                      For a lump of iron ore and my washing done for a month, I'll meet you in person....
                      I might not stay long, but at least you'll have seen me in person...
                      And a free toilet roll is also included in the service... (Do with it as you will)


The defence didn't like their client... So definatley A Base Metal Service there!!!!!!!!!  (IMO)


If they didn't have the resources (platinum) to cross reference and check everything...Is this why they advised Dr Vincent Tabak to enter the plea?????

With the prosecution telling them about the confession to the chaplain, the sobbing girl and no independant analysis of Dr Vincent Tabka's computers... Did the defence just believe what the prosecution said???

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they try an explain that one..... ' Sorry mate'... I nearly came to a conclusion, but I ran out of money for you... .... (this is where your free Toilet roll might come in handy)

It's quite a worrying state of affairs..
Lord have mercy..... The man stood No Chance!!!!

Game set and Match to the Prosecution , before we have even had a trial (IMO)!!

All might be fair in love and war..... But Justice?????? only if you can pay for it!!!!!

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-aid-equality-a-myth-says-solicitor-advocate-kelcey/65516.article

There is a misconception within the public at large that Legal Aid will provide a proper defence.  In fact Legal Aid will get you an absolute basic representation and with a lawyer or barrister (if the case is serious enough) who are used to dealing with such cases.  A lawyer who is acting on the basis of legal aid will not do any investigative work, if tests are required or an expert needed to testify the lawyer has to write to the Legal Aid Board making a case for such expenditure.  On the other hand, the prosecution can have all the witnesses they want and pay them handsome expenses for their trouble.  They can have experts galore and bring them to the UK from just about anywhere.  Not exactly a level playing field I agree, the justice system is loaded in favour of the prosecution from the getgo.

[John]

It is possible that one or two are reading this thread... maybe they could contribute and settle various questions..

Jurors are forbidden from discussing cases, it's called contempt of court.

Don’t post comments about the trial on social media websites like Facebook or Twitter - even after the trial’s finished. This is contempt of court and you can be fined or sent to prison.

https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/discussing-the-trial

[Leonora]

You talk about no normal person, anyone posting on here is connected to the family etc

My last comment to you is we as in the people who believe in his guilt all AGREE with Tabak himself so how is it that WE are wrong but everything YOU post whether real or make believe is acceptable?

I am not the only poster who has "come with a big list". Every list posted has been composed of facts - not opinions. You may disagree with opinions, but you may NOT dismiss facts (evidence) without explaining yourself. Anything less is disrespectful to those who posted the lists and those who took the trouble to read them.

It seems to me that your are the one fearlessly walking the "dangerous line". You repeatedly assert that you think Vincent Tabak guilty because he said he did it (or words to that effect). In the context of this thread, that is disrespectful behaviour, since there can be many reasons why he should not have been telling the truth in this particular situation, and as already discussed, his account was exceptionally lacking in credibility.

An astonishing number of witnesses and lawyers walked what you call the "dangerous line" during the trial, and some of us are trying to work out why.

[Leonora]

Jurors are forbidden from discussing cases, it's called contempt of court.

Don’t post comments about the trial on social media websites like Facebook or Twitter - even after the trial’s finished. This is contempt of court and you can be fined or sent to prison.

https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/discussing-the-trial

"Don’t discuss the trial with anyone until it’s finished, except with other jury members in the deliberation room. After the trial you mustn’t talk about what happened in the deliberation room, even with family members. You can talk about what happened in the courtroom."

In other words, any juror is legally free to post on this thread, for example to correct any inaccuracies in the reporting of what took place in open court during this trial. It is only the deliberations by the jury that must remain secret.

[John]

Some pointers guys.

Firstly, I have previously asked that posters keep comments constructive and amiable, please take heed.

Secondly, jurors are prevented from discussing their trial even after it has finished. Breach of this requirement could land them a contempt of court charge. We take this matter seriously so any member actively seeking to encourage a juror to do this will be suspended.

Lastly, please do not post personal comments as if they are fact.  You may speculate but please add the words "in my opinion" to your comments.

[John]

"Don’t discuss the trial with anyone until it’s finished, except with other jury members in the deliberation room. After the trial you mustn’t talk about what happened in the deliberation room, even with family members. You can talk about what happened in the courtroom."

In other words, any juror is legally free to post on this thread, for example to correct any inaccuracies in the reporting of what took place in open court during this trial. It is only the deliberations by the jury that must remain secret.

Anyone can post on this forum anonymously.

What was the reason given for the four Fire Service appliances which attended the scene?