Author Topic: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?  (Read 22671 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Leonora

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2017, 07:41:52 PM »

Did the Birch's drive to Longwood Lane ??? I believe they lived in the BS7 or BS6 postcode area ....
Christmas day 2010 was bright and sunny. Mr Daniel Birch and his wife Rebecca had opened their presents and then set off to walk their chocolate Labrador dog Roxy shortly before 9.00 a.m. They parked their Mini One car near Longwood Lane, Failand, North Somerset. Mr Birch said that after they had walked about 100 metres he had seen a “lump” in the snow, and had carried on walking, but his “mind was saying ‘that was a body back there’”. He said to his wife, “That was a body”, handed the lead to her, went back, and saw the shape of a body in the snow, and saw a jeans pocket, the waistband of underwear, and skin, and then he phoned the police. The dead woman was lying on her right side, with her knees pointing towards a quarry wall. Her right arm was bent around her head while her left was resting straight across her body.

Mr. Birch remembered the top of her white knickers and part of her bare back being exposed through the snow. Mr. Birch’s wife had joined him before he had called the police.

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
  • Total likes: 790
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2017, 10:57:27 PM »
I have no idea who the Birches might be, and Leonora's suggestions, although a little too far fetched for me, are possible, I suppose.

Somebody on one of the forums (don't remember which one) claimed that it was their friend who found the body.

Now, how have the Birches managed to escape press attention?  How have Tanja and Greg managed to escape it?  I am always wondering that. It is one of the weird aspects of this case.


Offline [...]

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2017, 11:33:24 PM »
I have no idea who the Birches might be, and Leonora's suggestions, although a little too far fetched for me, are possible, I suppose.

Somebody on one of the forums (don't remember which one) claimed that it was their friend who found the body.

Now, how have the Birches managed to escape press attention?  How have Tanja and Greg managed to escape it?  I am always wondering that. It is one of the weird aspects of this case.


I saw someone on facebook who said it was a friend who saw the body... I'll have to look see if i screen shot the post.... might take me a while to find ....
Talking of them all escaping the media attention I have idea how that has been achieved....


Offline AerialHunter

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2017, 03:48:15 PM »
The Birches are still on record as living in Long Ashton, right next to Failand, so they do actually exist.
There is none so noble or in receipt of his fellows unbridled adulation as that police officer who willingly deceives to protect one of his own kind and, by virtue of birthright, extends that privilege to his family.

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
  • Total likes: 790
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2017, 05:08:22 PM »
The Birches are still on record as living in Long Ashton, right next to Failand, so they do actually exist.

So, is it worth me trying to get in touch with them too?  I can't believe, for a moment, that they would tell me anything, but if it helps, I will.

Offline AerialHunter

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #50 on: May 15, 2017, 05:25:33 PM »
I'd doubt if there is much to be gained. If they were part of a cover-up they are very unlikely to change their story in any case. They may be willing to point to the very spot the body was found though.
There is none so noble or in receipt of his fellows unbridled adulation as that police officer who willingly deceives to protect one of his own kind and, by virtue of birthright, extends that privilege to his family.

Offline [...]

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #51 on: August 11, 2017, 02:53:20 PM »
I'd doubt if there is much to be gained. If they were part of a cover-up they are very unlikely to change their story in any case. They may be willing to point to the very spot the body was found though.

I have found so many things that point to a cover up, that they clearly should not be ignored.. The photographic evidence in itself, shows that someone in charge had tampered with the "Crime Scene"....  (IMO) Where painting of the Kitchen Window Sill Tiles can clearly be seen to have been done after a "Murder Was Committed    http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418939#msg418939

The images taken of Dr Vincent Tabak's door in December 2010 allure to the fact that the Police had him in their sights as a suspect.. But continued to interview him as a witness.. not giving him his basic rights to be cautioned.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418537#msg418537.

The removal of evidence without Proper Protocol being adhered too, by unknown random workmen, from random companies.. using their own teeth to rip gaffer tape and wiping their noses on the plastic gloves, which are worn to prevent cross contamination.. clearly indicates to me that The Police believe that Joanna Yeates did not reach home...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418543#msg418543

The constant Investigation surrounding that building, before any other leads were established makes me believe that the POLICE already had someone in mind for this "Murder".. And had decided that someone in 44,canygne Road had a connection to this person....

You have to rationalise how the Police jumped straight into a "Complex Crime"...  after the reporting of a "Missing Person".... With so many high ranking Officers being involved in this case in one capacity or another...

All of these "OFFICERS" that were making public statements or being visible at Crime Scenes for the Real Killer to see.. that they were all working feverishly to capture them...

From day one we had DC Mark Saunders of the cold case unit heading the first "Press Conference" about Joanna Yeates whereabouts...

We have Ann Reddrop Head of The Complex Crime Unit.. Seeing Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction through to the bitter end.. when Dr Vincent Tabak's case was NO COMPLEX CRIME!!!!

They were busy trying to connect the dots of other unsolved murders and Cold Cases, with Dr Vincent Tabak... but they just wouldn't fit.... His age for starters make him a non runner... But they may have seen him as an accomplice... But that would mean that he joined in at a later date as these "Murders" and Missing woman has been going on for decades...

I hardly think it is likely that a Serial Killer advertised for assistance... But the Police keep advertising to 'The Serial Killer" that they have him/her in their sights...

For Dr Vincent Tabak's statement to be believed, which was read out on court and he was on the witness stand explaining himself.. The Evidence should wholly support this... But i have difficulty in believing this signed statement as TRUE..... And everyone loves an admission of guilt.... makes their job easier.....

Colin Port puts paid to Dr Vincent Tabak's statement and appearance in court, that he killed Joanna Yeates in her flat... (IMO)..When at the Leveson Inquiry..  He states that the last sighting on CCTV of Joanna Yeates was at 'The HopHouse Pub"... And DC Mark Saunders has viewed CCTV footage on Canygne Road for the weekend of Friday 17th December 2010 and doesn't state that Joanna Yeates is seen in this CCTV footage, but sees many people and vehicle going about their business on Canygne Road at that time.... So... If this wonderful piece of CCTV footage had Joanna Yeates arriving home on 17th December 2010,.. It should and Could have been used at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... Also showing how he left Canygne Road to go to ASDA....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg418878#msg418878


So if Joanna Yeates didn't reach home.. how could Dr Vincent Tabak kill her ??

The Police never persued the possibility that someone returned her belongings for what ever reason.... They let everyone know so much details of this case so early on that it seemed that we all were aware of what was 'Missing" and what had been left behind... Information that I believe should NOT have been made public as early as 22nd December 2010 the day after she was reported 'Missing"....

This has to be 'SOMETHING that The POLICE kept in reserve to IDENTIFY The KILLER... Something that no-one else but themselves and the Killer are aware of... Something that they should have used in court to say... Yes!! Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates because we have this evidence.... etc...That only her killer would know !!

Lets take the Earring In The Bed under the Duvet.. That was explained away in a ridiculous fashion (IMO)... If Joanna Yeates didn't reach home... then the earring had to be planted in her bed... And the other underneath clothing... If Dr Vincent Tabak had placed Joanna Yeates on or in her bed, he would not have been able to stop transfer... Yet... no forensic evidence supports that Dr Vincent Tabak was even in Joanna Yeates Flat... let alone her bedroom... 
And as far as Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat... There is No forensic evidence that Joanna Yeates was ever in his home either...

There has to be something in Joanna Yeates FLAT to indicate that "SOMEONE" in 44,Canygne Road committed this offence from the very start.... There was NO FORCED ENTRY... If that and that alone was there reason for harrassing the tenants of 44, Canygne Road it seems a poor reason (IMO)... The Police were in and out of the main entrance of Canygne Road on a daily basis...

What EVIDENCE did they have that it was SOMEONE in that building comitted this crime ???? They cannot just jump to the conclusion that she invited Dr Vincent Tabak in... OR CJ had keys.... When there are many other possibilities to investigate...

But they didn't Investigate other possibilities... They stuck fast and firm with that Building.... And right up until they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak there was nothing to indicate that he had even seen Joanna Yeates that evening.. let alone anything else...

But they persued that building to the bitter end until they got a result...

If nothing of Dr Vincent Tabak or any other tenant/owners was found in Joanna Yeates flat... how do you jump from them not knowing anything or her, to them being the KILLER???

I say this because, she is seen at a pub where someone could have easily followed her, could have known her routine for a Friday night... It could also have been someone she knew or had been in contact with.... But the Police dismiss these possibilities and plumb straight for the people in the building!!!

What was it other than her not being at home when Greg Reardon called the Police that made them respond so quickly to that address??

Was there something else in Joanna Yeates Flat that didn't belong to her ??? Something that made 'The Head of The Complex Crime Unit" sit up and all of The Investigating Officers of other high profiled cold cases take notice...

 They may fool the general public with your displays of Canygne Road and all your Photoshopped Pictures... But we are NOT ALL FOOLED... We are not all Gullible.... We will keep questioning why you put people away in prison for crimes they didn't commit... Until you make amends of the lives you too have ruined ...(IMO)..

I will say again... If Dr Vincent Tabak actually killed Joanna Yeates, then prove it..... Prove with all the CCTV footage and the mobile phone signals that he was in Longwood Lane on the 17th December 2010...

Prove how he managed to search the Internet at 1:46am and 1:47am on the 18th December 2010 when he wasn't at his home...

Prove how he managed to paint the Kitchen window Sill when it was a "Crime scene" and no-one other than the Police should have had access... that includes random workmen !!! (IMO) when he probably was already in custody when this event happened ... You can't have 2 images of a kitchen window sill partly painted and the fully painted in a Flat that was supposed to be a time capsule ...!!  but we have !!!

Prove by timings how long it took him to move a dead weight on his own.... Prove how difficult it is to move a dead weight ....

I never understood WHY you didn't have any real supporting evidence in court as to Dr Vincent Tabaks version of Events.... When he is telling you he is on a main road.... when he is in ASDA car Park ..Parking his car... Where is the CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak Parking his Car in the ASDA carpark????

If Dr Vincent Tabak had a "Serial Killer "mentality" so as to be so cunning deceitful and have the ability to act normally through out this entire time.... Prosecution where was your psychological evaluation to support this fact were was the medical evidence to support the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak had the mindset of a killer ????

Because there is NO evidence in this case apart from a signed statement... Well people sign things all the time does it make it true...

Colin Port signed statement to The Leveson.. Claiming that The Hopwood House was the last known CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates...(I believe Colin Port wouldn't lie to the Leveson)... So on that note.. she cannot have reached her flat on the 17th December 2010, because we know that the Police have viewed the CCTV footage from Canygne Road and that CCTV is never brought to trial... (IMO).. showing what should be footage of Joanna Yeates arriving home on that evening!!!

So what is the truth about Joanna Yeates Murder??? Because everyone has gone along way in putting this Dutchman away, without evidence to support this... Even his defence didn't defend him ....(IMO)...

What makes everyone behave in such outrageous fashions that they can tamper with evidence (Kitchen Tiles).. etc..Mishandle Evidence...(Cross contamination).. Harass neighbours ...  Treat clients outrageously (Call them all the names under the sun and give the a Base metal defence )..... vilify said client in the newspapers all to make the general public believe this story.... And it is a story (IMO)... Lets have the truth and lets have Justice...

And Joanna Yeates deserves better to be honest... She deserves the truth... (IMO)... She deserves not to have been swept up under the carpet... She deserves to be at peace....

EDIT.... Maybe the question about the building should be..... Who other than the known occupants of 44,Canygne Road had a connection to that building??? Seeing as the Police were all over it like a rash !!! (IMO)....

Offline Leonora

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #52 on: August 11, 2017, 08:31:40 PM »
Colin Port signed statement to The Leveson.. Claiming that The Hopwood House was the last known CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates...(I believe Colin Port wouldn't lie to the Leveson)...
He lied. He insisted that he did not endorse off-the-record briefings. But there were at least three of these:

1. He must have briefed the press off the record not to mention the fire engines. All but The Mail and ITN respected this.

2. He must have briefed the press off the record not to mention the inquest. They all respected this.

3. He must have briefed the press off the record that the Plea & Case Management hearing was due to be held in Court 2 at the Old Bailey one day later than the date set by judge Colman Treacy four months earlier. The general public were not notified in advance.

Offline [...]

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #53 on: August 11, 2017, 10:22:27 PM »
He lied. He insisted that he did not endorse off-the-record briefings. But there were at least three of these:

1. He must have briefed the press off the record not to mention the fire engines. All but The Mail and ITN respected this.

2. He must have briefed the press off the record not to mention the inquest. They all respected this.

3. He must have briefed the press off the record that the Plea & Case Management hearing was due to be held in Court 2 at the Old Bailey one day later than the date set by judge Colman Treacy four months earlier. The general public were not notified in advance.



Offline Leonora

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #54 on: September 05, 2017, 05:00:30 PM »
The proper question should have been, "Why do some think Vincent Tabak guilty?" Anyone who follows even a fraction of the posts on this forum will quickly discover that the entire trial was PHONEY. It was a show trial. That is neither an opinion nor an inference. It is easy to demonstrate on the basis of a large number of known facts that are not in dispute. We have indeed already demonstrated on this forum. Just so as to leave no one in any doubt, I intend to re-examine here and now what I consider to be the strongest evidence that the finding of the trial were nonsense.

It follows automatically that, regardless what the defendant may have said, the likelihood that he is actually guilty is vanishingly small.

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
  • Total likes: 790
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #55 on: September 05, 2017, 05:41:22 PM »
The proper question should have been, "Why do some think Vincent Tabak guilty?" Anyone who follows even a fraction of the posts on this forum will quickly discover that the entire trial was PHONEY. It was a show trial. That is neither an opinion nor an inference. It is easy to demonstrate on the basis of a large number of known facts that are not in dispute. We have indeed already demonstrated on this forum. Just so as to leave no one in any doubt, I intend to re-examine here and now what I consider to be the strongest evidence that the finding of the trial were nonsense.

It follows automatically that, regardless what the defendant may have said, the likelihood that he is actually guilty is vanishingly small.


Well------guess what, Leonora-----I do actually agree with you on this!

Offline Leonora

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #56 on: September 05, 2017, 06:01:13 PM »
The most decisive evidence of a phoney trial is the testimony of Peter Brotherton, whom the court were told was a Salvation Army prison chaplain at the time of the events he described in the witness box. He may indeed be an adherent of the Salvation Army, who had the contract for pastoral care at Long Lartin prison at the time when Vincent Tabak was remanded there. However, he failed to tell the court that he was also a long serving senior prison officer at another prison. This omission alone makes the witness's testimony AND the integrity of Counsel for the Prosecution questionable.

Peter Brotherton was called as a witness for no other reason than to tell the court about the circumstances under which the defendant, a few days after being remanded in custody, had come to confess to him that he had killed Joanna Yeates. The witness reported several conversations in some detail, and his testimony appeared somewhat disconnected. The decisive fact was that he AT NO POINT IN HIS TESTIMONY stated that the defendant had actually told him that he had killed Joanna Yeates.

This fact was alleged ONLY under cross-examination by the defendant's own Counsel, William Clegg QC, in such a way that the witness didn't need to answer "Yes" or "No". It was a flagrant trick. One of a judge's principal tasks in a court case is to stop any barrister who "leads" a witness or makes allegations that are unsupported by the testimony of a witness under oath. But Mr Justice Field made no objection.

The testimony and cross-examination of this important witness was reported in detail by all of the journalists in court, and careful reading of any of their articles in the news media revealed the way he and Mr Clegg tricked the jury and the public. All of these articles have now been removed from the internet, leaving only summaries which reinforce the lie that Vincent Tabak confessed his guilt to the "chaplain".

Offline Leonora

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #57 on: September 05, 2017, 06:13:45 PM »
The Danish fairytale teller Hans Anderson wrote a celebrated story called "The Ugly Duckling". Technically, this story belongs to the genre known as a "picaresque". Cinemagoers will be more familiar with the designation "road movie". The central person goes on a journey in which they encounter pleasant and unpleasant episodes, and end up wiser as a result. At the end of this fairytale, the Ugly Duckling learns that he is not an ugly duckling after all. He is not a duckling at all, but a swan.

One of the things that Peter Brotherton told the court was widely reported, and widely condemned, by people who had no idea what he was getting at. He was pretending to explain why he had breached the prsioner's confidentiality. Of his conversation with Vincent Tabak, he stated, "It was not a religious confession". It was not a confession at all! His reason for doing this must have been to protect himself against ever being called to account for himself if he were accused of perjury. At no other time did he use the word "confession", and on this one occasion he had told the court, "It was NOT a ... confession".

Offline Leonora

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #58 on: September 05, 2017, 06:24:22 PM »
In cross-examining Peter Brotherton, Counsel for the Defence William Clegg pretended to discredit the witness by referring to a statement he had signed on 16th February 2011, recounting verbatim his conversations with the prisoner. Mr Clegg siezed upon what he claimed was a discrepancy between what the witness said and what the statement said. The discrepancy was without significance, and the answer given by the witness was non-committal. Yet it gave the barrister the opportunity to voice the guilty words that the witness himself had never uttered, namely, that the prisoner had already told his lawyers that it was he who had killed Joanna.

Had this been a normal trial, both the judge and the jury would have had a copy of this important witness's written statement, and would have been able to check for themselves what it really said. But this did not happen. The issue of the alleged discrepancy was not resolved at all. Nor did the witness agree under cross-examination that the statement dated 16th February 2011 actually existed. Therefore no such statement existed, and we have only the witness's words in court as to what was actually said in prison.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 06:34:24 PM by Leonora »

Offline Leonora

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #59 on: September 05, 2017, 06:32:39 PM »
If you have a prisoner who is actually guilty of a killing, why call an important witness who pretends to testify to a confession that never took place? Why did Counsel for the Prosecution. Nigel Lickley QC, tell the jury that the defendant had confessed to a prison chaplain that he had killed Joanna? It was a lie. There was no such confession, and he was no more a real "chaplain" than the ugly duckling was a real duckling.

Why did Counsel for the Defence, an eminent barrister, of all people, turn the witness's rambling testimony into a confession harmful to his own client, using a clever and manipulative trick in open court?

Why did the judge fail to do the very task for which he was there, namely, to alert the participants in the charade that they must not manipulate the jury?

Why did the defendant himself not bat an eyelid?

Ladies and gentleman of this forum, the trial and the behaviour of the lawyers were phoney, and this witness single-hand has given you incontravertible proof of this.