Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[jixy]

Conspiracy theories...please!

Maybe he did have an ounce of shame, remorse or another reason for talking in prison but a conspiracy I just don't buy it!

[mrswah]

I agree with most of what Nine has said in her last post.

I don't have a great deal of faith in VT's confession, and never have, I'm afraid.  The fact that he cried in court, and apologised to JY's family is odd too:  one doesn't usually hear of defendants doing that, paricularly people on trial for murder,  and it sounds like someone who had a  mad moment, with tragic consequences, and who really regretted it afterwards.

Or, somebody who was so confused that he was no longer sure whether he had killed Joanna or not.

No doubt, some people on here will say it was all crocodile tears, and done in order to make himself look better than he actually was!!!!!!! 

We just dont know, do we, and that is why we have different views about the case. 

I have applied to write to VT in prison, and I strongly suspect that I will be told that he doesn't want to hear from me.  I do know that a couple of people tried to write to him while he was on remand (not me or Nine, by the way), and were told exactly that.   Maybe he really does not want to hear from anyone, and maybe the powers that be dont want him corresponding with anyone.  Who knows?

[[...]]

And his confession?

I believe there are very good reasons for most of what you quoted but im sure you will disagree

So his confession is wrong, the fact he cried in court and said sorry is wrong also

He would not have been given bail no matter what money he had!

Maybe he was moved for his own safety - would that be wrong to you too?

There is never anything wrong with questioning things that don't make sense. What I don't understand is that even when alternative scenarios are offered you ignore and dig deeper to prove his innocence, his ill treatment  while taking none of it on board!

His confession was just that.... Not recorded or anything.. . We don't know what was said in the confession and whether the priest was being accurate with the content...

I would like to see the 1300 page document to assertain wether it was possible in the time allotted...

I can think of other scenario's that do not include Dr Vincent Tabak that I can not say:

What reason other than Sexual did Dr Vincent Tabak have to committ this crime??

When we've discussed that the searches were not relative and didn't show intent...

when Joanna Yeates was not Sexually Assaulted...

When you already have doubt as to why the information was brought to trial, but not relevant and his Solicitor didn't recieve the 1300 page document before trail.. So he could object to the relevance of the information that was within the 1300 page document..

If he didn't know of it's exsistence before Trial had commenced how could he make an object to it???

I dig because this is a discussion forum.. we all have differences of opinion,..

Let me see the document, I'm sure that there is something in there that holds important relevant information as Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction..

And another issue is if the judge originally thought that the trail would take 4 weeks... why did it only take 2 weeks??

What evidence was not examined fully and what evidence was omitted.......

[jixy]

aw bless him shall we have a collection and send him a postal order or send it quicker via the online service?

Just for your information most people don't strangle their neighbours implicate an innocent man and dump the body after watching videos of a woman looking very much like the victim

Have you thought that he was crying tears for himself? like what have I done? The years flashing before his eyes all due to liking/watching poor women being strangled

Yes my heart bleeds

Show some respect for the victim. He has moved prisons. has he put in any claims of being mistreated?

Years down the line what has he done to let the world know he is innocent after confessing . Both you are Nine are really really good at asking questions ignoring all the answers that don't suit how badly done to and innocent  he really is

Its like you are fighting your own battle.

As for it being a set up to allow him to confess to a murder you say he didn't do to a Chaplain when he isn't religious. How the heck would that be possible? If he was innocent why would anyone expect him to confess to anyone?

[mrswah]

I don't believe VT pointed the finger at an innocent man at all, but I have said this in a previous post and given my reasons, so I won't repeat myself.

As for the  videos of women being throttled, I would like to know who has actually seen these, and whether anyone would testify under oath that they existed.  I have no doubt that VT looked at some legal porn (probably behind his girlfriend's back), but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the other stuff was concocted.

I could be wrong , of course, but then, I have never denied that I might be wrong.

[[...]]

Conspiracy theories...please!

Maybe he did have an ounce of shame, remorse or another reason for talking in prison but a conspiracy I just don't buy it!

A conspiracy theory is always a good word to bandy around when someone is simply asking question:

A conspiracy theory tends to have an alternative account of what has taken place..

I haven't given an alternative account of what has taken place. And neither has mrswah that I am aware of on this disscussion of the case.

I have simply looked at whats available and as Mrswah said...

I did read that VT was moved from Bristol prison for his own safety, very shortly after being placed on remand,  but I hadn't realised he had been moved twice.  I cannot help believing that his meeting with Brotherton was deliberately engineered. 

If mrswah wasn't aware he had been moved twice,and in quick succession..

And mrswah has taken an interest in this case for quite a while I bellieve...

Then what else do we not know about Dr Vincent Tabak and his treatment...

[jixy]

maybe you are forgetting yourself lol Mrswah said it was deliberately engineered and I was replying to 'her' and that comment not you or yours or was I?


So if you read it again, it wasn't me who said it but you jump in once again pointing the finger at anyone who disagrees but never at the Dr hmm

[jixy]

Still while you are deflecting about naughty Chaplains telling tales you don't have to answer the question about the videos and the events that followed. you know, the important stuff.

[[...]]

Just for your information most people don't strangle their neighbours implicate an innocent man and dump the body after watching videos of a woman looking very much like the victim

Firstly your correct.... most people do not murder their next door neighbour that they have never meet..

Statistically moving a strangers body from the scene of a crime is not done.. this has been touched upon on earlier posts...

Moving a body 3 times is even less likely statistically i would imagine(IMO)

And the evidence that he watched the fore mentioned video was not produced as evidence in court..

Therefore there is no evidence that the information on what Dr Vincent Tabak watched is true:...

A still picture from a video is not an image... what film and what context was the picture taken from....

I posted regards the man whom was arrested about the pseudo video that was thrown out because the image was a still and the video was pseudo and when watched in context the man had done nothing illegal.

I'm sure there are many murder mystery films,TV series etc... that could show some poor lady tided up in the boot of a car....

Context is what is needed.....

[jixy]

I think you should read the Felicity Gerry article. Im sure Mrswah has read it before as there is a comment in her name.

You will find the reasons why certain things were said in court and others weren't so it can be ruled out of the argument

http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/

‘Bad character’ evidence is evidence that the defendant has carried out reprehensible behaviour other than the offence charged. It is not limited to criminal convictions. Tabak had no criminal history. The judge concluded that the possession of strangulation pornography was reprehensible and later sentenced on the basis of sexually motivated murder but excluded that material from the consideration of the jury during the prosecution case.

‘A difficult balancing exercise’

It was a difficult balancing exercise for the judge but, in my view, the right one: The only issue in the trial was intent and not sexual motive. That depended on the level of force and the time it would take to kill. In the end the pornography could only support a suggestion that he liked violent sex. This would have been admissible if he had denied killing, but he didn’t. In addition, the evidence was that most viewing of pornography was after the killing so, on balance, viewing strangulation pornography after the event would be more prejudicial than probative in a trial as it could cause the jury to leap to a conclusion rather than reaching a verdict on the evidence. Tabak’s sexual conduct online and with prostitutes could also have been used to rebut his assertions that he was morally correct but he was obviously such apoor witness that, as the verdict shows, it was better to reach a safe conviction on direct expert evidence than one based on an examination of his character and leave the now proved motive to the judge when setting the sentencing tariff.

nail on the head! and no reason to say that because it wasn't used means it didn't happen!

[jixy]

haha im gonna leave you to your mad ideas. Im sure you would see good in anyone especially if there were sex offenders involved. that much is obvious

[PaultheRed]

 Nine why when asked questions do you never give a straight answer you go around the houses or deflect things away from them by raising more questions is it because you are making things up to suit your posts and comments Andrew or is it just simply the way you like to post and comment to make it look like you are intelligent & know what you are talking about when really you are just a crank or so it appears

[[...]]

  In addition, the evidence was that most viewing of pornography was after the killing so, on balance, viewing strangulation pornography after the event would be more prejudicial than probative in a trial as it could cause the jury to leap to a conclusion rather than reaching a verdict on the evidence.

I have to look at your statement in pieces:

And if after the killing you say that he looked at this porn, what did he put in the search engine???

"S&M particularlly  a girl wearing a pink t shirt....

Now that may have swayed things...

It is ludicrous to imply as the media did that Dr Vincent Tabak looked at images such as this and committed the said crime....

It is also more ludicrious to suggest he happened upon an image of a girl in a pink t shirt in the boot of a car... Just after he had  committed the crime or searched for the said image......

[[...]]

Nine why when asked questions do you never give a straight answer you go around the houses or deflect things away from them by raising more questions is it because you are making things up to suit your posts and comments Andrew or is it just simply the way you like to post and comment to make it look like you are intelligent & know what you are talking about when really you are just a crank or so it appears

Who's Andrew??

[jixy]

Felicity Gerry is rubbish too

Ignore all the facts that make him guilty and wave your banner for sex offenders

How many names have you posted under ? Are you even allowed to be doing this?