Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[mrswah]

And, by the way, in my opinion, Jo was a normal 25 year old, like any other normal 25 year old. The only difference is that , very tragically, she was killed. 

[mrswah]

By the way, was there any evidence of a struggle in the flat ever recorded?

At first, the media were saying there were no signs of a struggle. I recall that Jo's parents thought the state of the flat was unusual, but I cannot recall whether they thought it was too tidy, or more untidy than usual. It wasn't made clear, and I remember being confused by this at the time. At the trial, Greg testified that he had come home to find disorder, and things out of place, which he had to tidy up.

[mrswah]

I guess you are talking about the The murder of Glenis Carruthers who died in 1974 Nine ?

I remember that case, in 1974. I was a student teacher at the time, and two of my friends at college came from Bristol, and were really "spooked out" by what happened to Glenis. She was a student teacher too, although at a different college.  Yes, it is a "cold case".   I believe CJ was questioned about it------or so some media reports (and the film) say.

Although I dont believe VT killed Joanna (and he certainly didn't kill Glenis, as he wasn't even born then), I also don't believe that whoever killed Glenis also killed Joanna. There is too big a gap in years between the two murders. Only a very prolific serial killer, with  an extreme talent for not getting caught, could have done both.

[[...]]

I guess you are talking about the The murder of Glenis Carruthers who died in 1974 Nine ?

No...... both.....  Said he couldn't talk about cold cases....( As in plural)..

I was acutually asking him things to do with Dr Vincent Tabak.... And body fluids...

 Him And an American Cop I was talking too...  Said he'd get back to me... then a day later said he couldn't talk about cold cases...

All my questions were in relation to this case.... I just thought "Eh"????? seemed strange..

[[...]]

He could quite easily have made the story up about going into her flat, misreading the signals making an improper pass and killing her by accident as that would carry a lesser sentence rather than telling the truth that he meticulously planned his attack on her and viciously murdered her , his girlfriend heard the story in her 2 hr visit with him and realised he was guilty as did his brother and female friend, are you seriously suggesting that someone put his DNA on her , Her Blood in his car, the 145 pictures, the many searches he made such as the different sentence for manslaughter compared to murder ( if you hear a body of a neighbour has been found why search manslaughter your instinct would be someone murdered her) , then he was forced to confess and say sorry to the family in court, never instruct his solicitor to say he was innocent or not once before, during or after all this time say he is innocent & has suffered a miscarriage of justice Why one can only presume because he is guilty & did murder her   

he could have made the story up Paul... quite correct.... But you still have a time scale to follow....

Please explain why there is NO TimeStamp on the Asda Video?????

[[...]]

After conviction, details were released of his use of prostitutes and the contents of his computer which showed he had viewed violent and sexual pornography including strangulation pornography. Questions have been asked as to why such evidence was excluded in the trial. In analysing the judge’s decision it has to be borne in mind that not all people who watch pornography are murderers. Evidence of the bad character of a defendant is admissible as part of the prosecution case where it is relevant to the issues and not too prejudicial to a fair trial.

‘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.

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

By sentencing Dr Vincent Tabak with regards the Pornography that was brought to trial and was thrown out... Then the fact the Judge used it in sentencing, could that be a reason to look at his case????

How can you sentence someone on evidence that hasn't been proven... Wouldn't that be similar as "Heresay"????

How can that be Fair and True Justice???? As the proof of it being sexually motivated wasn't really proven!!!!

[[...]]

I agree but I can also see a clear reaosn he lied about being in the flat and that is where Joanna died. he was hoping for a manslaughter charge and the scenario he gave was far more plausible if he said it all happened there

The Manslaughter Charge was bound to be thrown out... It was a media frenzy... They were not going out without a bang!!! (IMO)..

But it's who persuaded him to plead guilty to manslaughter in the first place... because the defences evidence was  poor at best in court.... (1300 pages may have changed that!!)... They hadn't gone in all guns blazing trying to show how it was manslaughter..

The didn't seem to challenge the prosecution enough... No Medical Assessment of Dr Vincent Tabak...  No Mitigating Circumstances... Nothing....

They just popped him on the stand and let him take it... He didn't really need to be on the stand to be honest... then the onus would have been completely on the prosecution....

But.... like a song and dance, they had him sat there like a muppet... Knowing how the Jury was bound to respond...

He could have been sat near his own Council and watch it all unfold...


You see... that's another reason I have a problem.... he didn't need to be on the stand... !!!!

And it wasn't like his defence Council were trying to show him in the best light as his abuse of his own client is testiment to that (IMO)...

1:  his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.

2:  “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”

3:   And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single  appearance at court.

4:  He had told “lie after lie to the police.

5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.

6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.

7:  “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.

8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.

9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.

10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me

So why have Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand at all......  when as the Defence you would know what the Prosecution would do with him!!!!!!!!!

Being a Placid Dutchman!!!!

[[...]]

Do you understand the term "Show respect to the Dead "  Leonora ??? 

If so maybe you should try employing some there is nothing in any reports , stories or links that suggest that Joanna had anything less than a wholesome image unlike that of VT who has admitted to using Prostitutes, Hookers (USA term) and viewing Pornographic Images

When did Dr Vincent Tabak Admit to using Prostitutes???????  Erm....... Not that I know of!!!!!!

[[...]]

Going back to Dr Vincent Tabak taking the stand...

Why did they put him on it??????

I can see No benefit to Dr Vincent Tabak taking the stand!!!!

Basically I think it comes down partly to knowing what was in the statement that he signed , did that have a full explanation as to the events that were supposed to have taken place???

I don't believe it did..  I can't defineatly say as I haven't seen the statement, butI believe the explanation came later..

So again why put him on the stand???

I ask this question because he has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter, it was for the prosecution to take up the mantle and prove that his intention was murder..

Ordinarily  you would have a defendant on the stand trying to prove his Innocence , but in this trial, that wasn't the case.. And with the display we saw from Dr Vincent Tabak sobbing, he was not a very good person to be put on the stand...

Why did his defence team put him there???

We have had NO medical assesement of Dr Vincent Tabak made available, and if he was in such a depressed state, that in itself would lean towards him being an unreliable witness/defendant..

If there is little or no evidence in his signed staement. the prosecution would have to prove intent...

All they managed to do was destroy him on the witness stand and turn him into a blubbering mess..

What is that about!! Why would his Councel allow this????

This is governed by s35 Criminal Justice and Public Order 1994 (part of Michael Howard’s ‘tough on crime’ policy). This states that, provided there is no physical or mental reason why a defendant shouldn’t give evidence, then if they don’t “the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, may draw such inferences as appear proper from the failure of the accused to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question“.

If he remained silent.. I cannot see how the prosecution would prove intent to murder..

It the defendant demeour on the stand that sways the Jury more often than not, and by placing him on the stand, they left him wide open..

As we are aware... as I have said before, I believe the statements made by the Defence about their own client buried him in the minds of the Jury...

So why have him on the stand???

This has given rise to a huge amount of case law looking at when this applies, and what the Judge should tell the jury when a defendant doesn’t give evidence. The Crown Court Bench Book has the following guidance which judges should make sure the jury are aware of:

The judge will have told the jury that the burden of proof remains up on the prosecution throughout and what the required standard is.

It is necessary for the judge to make clear to the jury that the defendant is entitled to remain silent. That is his right and his choice. The right of silence remains.
An inference from failure to give evidence cannot on its own prove guilt.That is expressly stated in section 38(3) of the Act.

Therefore, the jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a case to answer before drawing any inferences from silence. Of course, the judge must have thought so or the question whether the defendant was to give evidence would not have arisen.

 But the jury may not believe the witnesses whose evidence the judge considered sufficient to raise a prima facie case. It must therefore be made clear to them that they must find there to be a case to answer on the prosecution evidence before drawing an adverse inference from the defendant’s silence.

If, despite any evidence relied upon to explain his silence or in the absence of any such evidence,the jury conclude the silence can only sensibly be attributed to the defendant’s having no answer or none that would stand up to cross-examination, they may draw an adverse inference.

Baring in mind that it would purely be on the Prosecution to prove Murder. if Dr VincentvTabak had remained silent... Then I believe the Manslaughter would have been the outcome..

If The Defence had listened to their own timelines, and read up on the 1300 page Document  I might then have understood why they had him on the stand.. Also proper cross examnation of prosecution witness's...

The evidence within the 1300 page Document would prove he didn't do it... coupled with the Timestamps on the Asda video's...

I keep asking myself... what was this case????

People have said what a good Lawyer he is... But I disagree.. your only as good as your last case... And Dr Vincent Tabak case... And I quote!!!

“If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.

But it wasn't a popularity contest... You were supposed to be fighting for a man's freedom... And if you took the time to Look at your own statement you would have know he couldn't do it.....

On the one hand the defence said that Miss Yeates died between 9:00pm and 9:30pm... Then on the other hand he said that Dr Vincent Tabak remained in his flat till 9:29pm.....

So could not have done it.....

So again... I will ask.... WHY PUT HIM ON THE STAND!!!!!!!!

How did he defend his client???

Because... I can't see how he did (IMO)


http://ukcriminallawblog.com/why-wouldnt-a-defendant-give-evidence/

Heres an interesting read:..

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-destroy-a-witness-on-the-stand-2013-7?IR=T

[jixy]

Please look at it from the other side for just a minute.

I was thinking the very same thing yesterday BUT if he didnt take the stand he could have still been thrown to the wolves as you see it

He gave his version of the night either with holes because he watered down his version of events or he made the whole thing up. Obviously we differ on that reason!

He most likely wanted to give 'his' evidence, a misjudgement that went wrong, he didnt mean it and most importantly he was sorry hence the crying and apologising

A gamble maybe but  unless we have been in the position how do we know what option we would choose. Nowhere is it stated he is a stupid man lacking any sort of intelligence so maybe he opted for damage limitation

If you knew you were facing a murder charge, which would you hope for?

[[...]]

5. Lawyers can still find other ways to trip witnesses up without calling them names
On cross-examination, lawyers should pay close attention to how quickly their witnesses talk, and to how quickly they're breathing, Singer tells us.

"If somebody is a fast talker, you want to speak slowly. If somebody is a slow talker, you want to talk very quickly," Singer says. "It trips them up. I'm a fast talker, and if somebody speaks slowly, I want to kill them."

Lawyers should look at how quickly witnesses breath and try to push their buttons to make their hearts race. But lawyers need to be subtle button-pushers. If lawyers blatantly attack witnesses on cross-examination, they may end up looking like bullies.

"A jury's sympathy will always be with the witness because they identify with the person ... They expect that the lawyer has all of the cards and the witness is at a disadvantage, especially on cross," Critelli says. "So as an attorney you need to anticipate this and try and figure out a way to get the jury to turn on the witness — that is come to a belief that they can't trust the person."

Yes... Get the Jury to turn on a witness... But Not your own defendant.....



1:  his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.

2:  “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”

3:   And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single  appearance at court.

4:  He had told “lie after lie to the police.

5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.

6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.

7:  “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.

8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.

9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.

10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me


http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-destroy-a-witness-on-the-stand-2013-7?IR=T

[[...]]

If you knew you were facing a murder charge, which would you hope for?

I would hope my lawyer had my interests first and foremost... And ALL THE EVIDENCE was brought to trial and given to my Lawyer way before the trial took place...

I would want CCTV Timestamps available..

I would want ever effort afforded to me to prove my innocence....

Not have to battle with my Lawyer because he tells the Jury that I am a Liar..... by saying......

  He had told “lie after lie to the police.

Ooooo..... yes please..... help me... The way you woo the Jury makes me confident I will win..... NOT!!


Lets put it this was Jixy... with that type of defence strategy... would you want him to defend you in a murder trial??????

The type were they will discredit you!!!!!

[jixy]

The points you make might resemble what happened but that wasnt your question. The question was why would he give evidence

Im sure if all that was said he wouldnt have expected it. What was said, his legal representation etc is a whole different argument

There is only so much you can do when someone has said they are guilty of the death of another person. You cant really prove their guilt if they themselves stand there and say yes I did it but I didnt mean to.


The trial was to work out was it murder or manslaughter not if confirm if he did it. He had done that already.

[[...]]

The points you make might resemble what happened but that wasnt your question. The question was why would he give evidence

Im sure if all that was said he wouldnt have expected it. What was said, his legal representation etc is a whole different argument

There is only so much you can do when someone has said they are guilty of the death of another person. You cant really prove their guilt if they themselves stand there and say yes I did it but I didnt mean to.


The trial was to work out was it murder or manslaughter not if confirm if he did it. He had done that already.

Manslaughter exactly... So why put him on the stand??? And why let the jury know you despise your own client??

So if he sat back and wasn't on the stand it would be more difficult for the prosecution.....

They wouldn't have had a show!!!!!!

Isn't this Misconduct on the defences part ???? Turning the Jury against your own client?????

[[...]]

Please look at it from the other side for just a minute.

I was thinking the very same thing yesterday BUT if he didnt take the stand he could have still been thrown to the wolves as you see it

He gave his version of the night either with holes because he watered down his version of events or he made the whole thing up. Obviously we differ on that reason!

He most likely wanted to give 'his' evidence, a misjudgement that went wrong, he didnt mean it and most importantly he was sorry hence the crying and apologising

A gamble maybe but  unless we have been in the position how do we know what option we would choose. Nowhere is it stated he is a stupid man lacking any sort of intelligence so maybe he opted for damage limitation

If you knew you were facing a murder charge, which would you hope for?

Don't think he gambled with anything.... Gambling suggest that you have a chance!!!

He Defence would have advised or told him to take the stand... I think he was very much the type of person who would comply with authority..

Wasn't it DCI Phil Jones who said: A Very Placid Individual To Deal With......


How can he give evidence on something he obviously didn't know anything about.. apart from what I believe he was told to say...

The police cannot release the evidence in the paper before he has been arrested... How would they Know how the DNA got on Joanna Yeates body????

Like I keep saying.... He told a story that was NOT his.... evidence of more than the DNA in the paper proves that... and all before Dr Vincent Tabak is arrested!!!