Is Clegg fit to defend anybody?



This thread started on 22nd November 2011


1
Noel O'Gara
.
William Clegg openly denounced his client when he opened his phony defence.
He failed to ensure the accused man's rights to due process and never raised the matter once in his defence.
He assisted and encouraged Tabak to make that coerced confession to manslaughter rather than advise his client to deny the charges.
As we can now see the police had nothing that would have substantiated their initial suspicions so we should question why Clegg encouraged his client to make that confession.
I would say that William Clegg has completely failed in his duty and I would go further and say that he has perverted the course of justice by walking his client into that confession without any justification knowing that he was isolated and being brainwashed.
I wonder if any of you would agree with me on this aspect of the case.




Karen Balfey
.
It should have been you representing him Noel, it should have been you..

Vicki Roust
.
@Karen! Hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John Collins
.
Yes Noel, but wasn't mainly about VT's behavious after then event? Is it usual for Defence to come down on their client like that?

John Collins
.
but wasn't it mainly ...

Anne Isherwood
.
Did Clegg take over after the admission of manslaughter? If so he doesn't have much option but to run with it.
If it had been a not guilty plea it would have been a very different trial with lots of the evidence tested but as it is no-one cares if one man can leave a forensically clean crime scene, make umpteen trips carrying a dead body, can fit it into a cycle bag, can fit it into his boot can unpack it from a cycle bag, hide it under leaves on a freezing winter night by a hedgerow without being spotted by cars with full beam on and then leave nothing but a tiny speck of blood in the boot and carry on as normal by 1am.

Noel O'Gara
.
No. Clegg was brought in to screw Tabak and screw him he did.
No honest defence could ever reprimand or disparage his client but Clegg did it.
It makes me laugh when some here suggest that he is the best defence in the Uk. My God he has sold his client down the river at every oppertunity.
I havent seen one argument or suggestion by him that could be called a defence.
Just imagine that pervert will be a judge soon.
.

Karen Balfey
.
Did you just call William Clegg a pervert?

Noel O'Gara
.
He has shown how he perverted the system of justice by disregarding his client's well recorded isolation and brainwashing over nine months.
Clegg has perverted the course of justice right under your noses by failing to take his client's instructions in seeking bail and brokering that false confession made under duress and possibly drug induced.
Tell me what did he say in defence of Tabak?
.

Facebook User
.
Hello Noel, I think you're extraordinary! But in a nice way - sometimes!
No, I admit, I have never heard a defence lawyer denounce his client like that before, but maybe it would have been different if VT had been pleading not guilty at all.
How has Clegg defended him? He's said there is nothing to like about him.

Diane Shepherd
.
Noel, you said his duty solicitor was no good, the last one was no good and Clegg is no good. Get a grip man.
Clegg is more than obviously taking the route of expressing nothing but honesty in what he is saying (whether the latter is true I personally think is doubtful) so by starting with what everyone thinks about a cold hearted killer > There is nothing to like about him, it adjusts the minds of the jury to take on board the rest of what he is saying. You know, but just won't accept it.
If your passion was just about miscarriage of justice, I'd be behind you 100% but your passion is tempered with so much bitterness that it clouds the positive passion.
You have NO proof of anything you are saying.

Minous Montgomery
.
I think it's not such a bad thing for Clegg to stress that everyone is entitled to think VT is a bastard for what he has done after the killing. I'm pretty sure there isn't a single person in the world that could think his behaviour after Joanna's death is defendable in any way, so he's just saying:
'Jurors, you are right: This man is a coward, this man is a bastard'. We all agree here. But of course being a coward nor a bastard proves someone is a murderer'.
Might not be such a bad strategy.

Eva Gietl
.
I agree with Minous.

Noel O'Gara
.
His job is to defend Tabak.
He has completely abrogated that responsibility.
Why has he not raised the failure of due process?
.

Karen Balfey
.
Um.. because there wisnae one, Noel..


Anne Isherwood
.
@Noel His brief to defend against murder with a guilty to manslaughter plea. He can't defend against the manslaughter plea because Tabak has not retracted his confession.
I think he's done ok with the nonsense scenario he's been presented with.

Noel O'Gara
.
he had a duty to defend a man who was clearly delusional.
A man whose confession didnt fit the facts.
He should have brought a spotlight on the coersion and interrogation.
.

1
Claire Silva
.
I feel uncomfortable with phrases "There's nothing to like about him". What VT did was (if we take his confession to be true), despicable, yes but that doesn't mean that there was nothing to like about him - there obviously was as he had a girlfriend and his family at the very least and a phrase like that affects them too. I can't think of a more negative thing to say about someone. It also implies by using that phrase that everything about him is unlikeable, including what he says. Hardly a fitting way for a defense lawyer to describe their client. He should be distancing his client from his actions not making his client out to be a horrible person. IMO.

Sarah Ryan
.
@Claire, I agree with you. I was surprised he said that,

Anne Isherwood
.
@Claire. It does seem a bit odd, doesn't it? I wonder if he's playing the jury a bit here. Knowing what an emotive case it is he's empathising with those who may be swung by their emotions and declaring Tabak a nasty unlikeable person but at the same time stating that he isn't a murderer.
If he said Tabak was a likeable person the jury may immediately switch off from what he has to say.

Claire Silva
.
@Anne, true - but he has had no character witnesses ( which maybe wouldn't apply in this case, I don't know) -no-one who has said what sort of person he was. It's as if there was no-one willing to do it ! It implies that the skeletons are going to come out of the closet when the verdict is reached. I would feel suspicious of him if I were the jury, with the only description of him as being horrible and unlikeable. Even if someone had just painted the picture that he was a normal kind of bloke before it all happened, it would have been something.

Anne Isherwood
.
@ Claire Clegg is known for presenting a very concise defense. He won't drag out any evidence or witnesses that do not have any direct bearing on the case. He only ever defends and does so by showing the prosecutions case to be unproven and not caring about the personalities involved.

Debra Ann Clements
.
I agree Claire it's almost like Tabak is totally alone in that court room as his own defence appears to be batting for the other side, at times. Though I do take on board what you say there Anne, it sure doesn't come across as at all helpful to VT in my opinion.
Also as VT's manslaughter plea was rejected and this is a murder trial, why has Clegg still it seems to me presented a case for manslaughter? You seems very au fait with all these legalities Anne, perhaps you can enlighten me here, because this case is most confusing at times.

Anne Isherwood
.
@Debra. If the murder charge is unproven then the admission of manslaughter stands and he is sentenced accordingly.

Facebook User
.
Noel, How could Clegg throw a spotlight on a coercion if there wasn't one?

Eddie Zadeh
.
Noel, I think Vt was abducted by aliens, made to confess, and then sent back to earth with some alien virus which made him obedient to clegg's commands

Marie Cyprus
.
I've changed my mind about Clegg - he is VERY clever isn't he! I think he did a good job today (the job that he was asked to do) Now I understand why he did the weird things he did earlier in the case!
It pays to wait sometimes!

Eddie Zadeh
.
Clegg is very clever,that is beyond dispute. If anyone needs a good defence lawyer, Clegg is one of the best.

Marie Cyprus
.
After today - I'd hire him! ;-) And that's me REALLY changing my tune isn't it!!!!
He's convinced me even more of Tabak's innocence.

Minous Montgomery
.
I really don't think VT was considered to be an unlikeable person before all of this. I remember that, just after his arrest, a group of his friends from the University of Eindhoven, wrote a warm letter to his family and offered to help with his legal fees if necessarily.
I really think Clegg used that 'there is nothing to like phrase' just to make the jury realize that 'everyone is on the same page there' and 'if I agree VT is a bastard for what he has done, you the jury just have to agree that there actually is reasonable doubt'.



Eddie Zadeh
.
Well, no one can criticise him for doing his job well, (with the exception of one poster on here).

Marie Cyprus
.
Hello Minous...Clegg is one clever B'tard....He's convinced me even more of Tabak's innocence in all of this!

Minous Montgomery
.
@Marie He clearly did a much better job than the pros, that's for sure.

Eddie Zadeh
.
@ Minous, hahahah :)

Marie Cyprus
.
Yes, although I did not initially agree with his tactics and found it disgusting that he should say those things about his OWN client...now it's all very clear why he did that...
I believe VT is innocent and - you know what - I think Clegg thinks this too!!!
;-)

Minous Montgomery
.
@Marie I really don't think that makes a difference to Clegg. It's all about him, he just wants to win.

Marie Cyprus
.
LOL Minous - of course!!

Eddie Zadeh
.
It is not "important" what the Lawyer believes, rather his skill of working with the Law, ie the tool of his trade.
VT is not innocent. he is guilty of either murder or manslaughter.

Joanne Rogers
.
I doubt very much that Clegg feels he is innocent

Marie Cyprus
.
Eddie - I will continue to disagree :-D
I have not seen enough evidence to convince me of any murder on the part of VT and I believe his confession was 'un-sound'...I know this is the unpopular/minority view...but Clegg has convinced me to further pursue my theory!

Frank
.
would suggest that this may be a test case for the relatively new defence of 'loss of control'
see below for more details ...quite interesting
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15443722
re Clegg
I would suggest that if he had a client who had not pleaded guilty to manslaugter that he would have been able to present a much better defence

Minous Montgomery
.
@Frank Colombo, That might be but I do think that the fact that 'they'll always have manslaughter' is a big motivation for the jury to come back with a not guilty verdict.

Facebook User
.
Marie, Noel dosen't see it that way. Noel thinks Clegg is working for the prosecution!

Marie Cyprus
.
Louise - I had that idea too I must admit - but today I changed my mind...amazing myself in the process!
Frank - very good point!

Joanne Rogers
.
@Frank interesting article though if I was a judge I would suggest for loss of control there should be a minimum requirent of 10 years of marriage not a 10 min chat with a stranger in the kitchen ;-)


Facebook User
.
I can't see Noel changing his, your mind Noel.
I don't really like talking about someone as if they are not there.

Anne Isherwood
.
Clegg isn't making any moral judgments, he's just playing the game. He has a particular succinct style, taking the word brief literally!
I think Lickley kept it fairly simple too, knowing who he was up against. There wasn't much point in painting a very complex picture for Clegg to just say "maybe all true but that still doesn't prove murder"
I think it would be a very different scenario if Tabak had pleaded not guilty to the killing but murder v manslaughter just comes down to intent.
The fact that both stories make no real sense or show any real motive is not the issue. That's our system of justice, the dots don't have to join up.

Facebook User
.
Anne, I too think it may be a different story if he had been pleading not guilty.

Noel O'Gara
.
A court case should never descend into a game of wits between opposing lawyers. Clegg might be playing a game but if he is then he is gambling with the life of his client and risks leaving the real killer a free man.
Its not a game and never should be even considered one.
Its up to the accuser to show his evidence to prove his allegation and the defending lawyer to pick holes or undermine it, if that is possible.
If the jury find sufficient evidence to believe that the accused is guilty then he is convicted. If it is not clearly proved or there is doubt, the jury will refuse to convict.
In this case Tabak was held for an unreasonable time in isolation and that undermines the police case against him. If they had the hard proof they could have given him bail without fear of his being able to get out of it and also they could have had him on trial within a few weeks.
We heard how CJ had an altered persona while he was locked up and he was a lucky man that they didnt charge him with it. He could easily have been in Tabak's shoes.
.

Facebook User
.
And Noel whose fault would that have been if he had?

Noel O'Gara
.
the police wrongly thought CJ was the killer. thats why they arrested him on suspicion of murder.
They were wrong Louise. so it was their fault.
but dont expect any apology. They are the force, the power, they dont apologise period.
It is an abuse of power.
.

Facebook User
.
It's a pity Clegg wasnt defending you Noel when you found yourself in 'trouble'. Then we wouldnt have to listen to your half baked tripe ;)

Vicki Roust
.
@Ed lol!!

Joanne Nunn
.
well said Ed..

Facebook User
.
But Noel, Don't you believe that VT contacted the police from Holland to try and frame CJ? I know the police should be careful how they handle things, but VT was trying to put them onto someone else on such flimsy evidence.

Noel O'Gara
.
no way would any killer draw attention to himself if the police arrested somebody else for his crime. He would sit tight.
But an innocent man would try to assist them just like any helpful citizen who had information about CJ. It is quite likely that Tabak told them about the movement of CJ's car or cars on that night as he was in and out of the car park himself that night. He might have noticed CJ's car had been started that night because it was just outside his window. He was the nearest person to it.
He would have been shocked by the arrest and like you he believed that the police had evidence that led them to arrest CJ.
It is twisting it to suggest that he was trying to set up CJ.
.

Facebook User
.
Well, he's apologised for it. His landlord could park his car any way he wished. VT was trying it on. But you're right that VT was also throwing a spotlight on himself by doing that, but I suppose he thought it was worth a shot. Trying to be clever.

Gina Sumner
.
Its far more twisting and twisted to suggest it was down to Greg, but hey, the odd person has.

Rita Heilig
.
I was stunned when I heard that Clegg had said that the jury were not being asked to like VT, in fact there was nothing to like about him!! WHAT? This is his barrister, he is supposed to be able to support his client. I think the whole defence of Tabak has been appalling. No witnesses called to perhaps explain Tabak's personality, his behaviour around women, no statement either for the defence or prosecution from his girlfriend. His behaviour that night is important. His behaviour after the death of Joanna is downright awful. His only desire (it appears) was to cover his tracks and avoid arrest. I believe that was the only reason why he went to ASDA etc. Now, after reading through this discussion forum, I have just read that Joanna died of a heart attack? Is that correct, is it possible then that when Tabak said on the stand that Joanna did not struggle, could he be telling the truth?

Sarah Ryan
.
@Rita, I too was very confused by the statement from Clegg that Joanna died of a heart attack and it mislead me and I am still not sure that the cause of death is scientifically exact, in that the heart stops at some point when death happens. My understanding was that strangulation as a cause would take a little longer with a fight to survive that in my opinion would be obvious to the person holding her. The judge today confirmed that there would have been a struggle, he didnt mention cause of death. I think Clegg was using the non exact evidence of what happened first to cause death to mislead - deliberately.



Rita Heilig
.
Well I have always wondered how anyone could strangle another person and claim manslaughter. I always saw manslaughter as something that happened perhaps in a fight, someone is hit and falls, knocking their head against a pavement etc. Clegg's defence has been odd to the extreme. He has not even tried to make Tabak in anyway sympathetic to the jury. I guess if the judge said Joanna struggled then there must be evidence that she did. The body does not lie. I was disturbed by the many injuries she received. Makes Tabak's story hard to believe.

Louise Frank
.
When someone is strangled and die - there are two ways that they can die. The first is the usual and most obvious way - they run out of breath and can no longer breath. This would take at least a minute (most people can hold their breath that long) for the person to lose consciousness - after the loss of consciousness - they may not be dead yet either.
The second way - is to block the blood flow through the neck to the brain. You have a major artery in your neck that takes blood from your heart up to your head. If this is blocked, then it will kill you through stopping your heart - this can happen in seconds.
Basically - the prosecution are saying it was the first method of death and the defence are saying it was the second method of death. Pathologists cannot tell conclusively which way of strangling it was that she died. So it's up to the jury to decide.

Sarah Ryan
.
@Louise, just read this and your explanation is great, far better than mine, which took me ages to get my head around :-)

Louise Frank
.
Thanks, I thought the pathologists' evidence was really interesting.

Sarah Ryan
.
@Louise, yes,me too, it became the crux of my thinking over the last week and the lack of hard facts as to which event JY suffered creates a very difficult situation IMO - although I believe both pathologists agreed she would have shown some struggle for life, even if for a short time.

Louise Frank
.
I agree. If they could show it was definitely the first one then I would only think manslaughter if there was something REALLY unusual (like for instance sleepwalking, or complete insanity of some sort - in which case it'd be insanity anyway) but because I feel it could be the second blood flow type, I can imagine that someone may not be trying to kill the person and would have let go even two or three seconds later with no death occuring if it hadn't happened - if you see what I mean (not sure that's explained very well) which is why on the poll I still say manslaughter.
It would be different on the jury though cause it's twelve people really getting to discuss it so they might be able to convince each other more than with so many people on here having massively different opinions.

Sarah Ryan
.
@ Louise, as a juror I would be thinking similarly to you, yesterday I swayed to murder because I added in his behaviour before and after but the big thing was that he hadnt mentioned the kiss/flirty behaviour in his first statement which made me really think his story was untrue which "must" equal intent - but it doesnt really - even if his story was fabricated and he was up to no good, it still does not mean he intended to kill.

Sarah Ryan
.
I think its important to remember that manslaughter is a very serious crime in itself, but in this situation i think it might be tempting to think, if i say manslaughter it suggests he was not in the wrong somehow - had no bad intentions.Either way I dont personally think he was benevolent in his mindset in any way at all.

Louise Frank
.
Yes, exactly. Even if he was breaking into her flat like some have suggested, or if he was actually trying to do something more than kiss her - it doesn't mean he actually intended to kill her at that moment - it does mean if the judge believes him his sentence will be different than if the judge doesn't believe him.
I think even if the jury go with not guilty, the judge will take into account all his behaviour for the sentence which is good.

Facebook User
.
I think Jos family will want a murder charge

Sarah Ryan
.
@Louise, yes, I think the sentencing will be the key reflection of the consensual attitude towards him and his actions from the court and I doubt very much (or hope) that any kind of suggestion he was behaving "innocently" will arise.

Sarah Ryan
.
@ Ed, I have no idea what they might want, I do think the sentencing and general attitude towards VT's actions are really important and would be to the family, as much as the verdict itself.

Louise Frank
.
I don't know what her family would want. I can imagine they would want their daughter back. That they might want VT to suffer. But I can't really know, and different people react differently to awful things so I will never know what they want unless they say.

Louise Frank
.
30 years to find out who killed your child, it's unfathomable :-(


Trudy Middleton
.
Its terrible, some people go to their own graves not even knowing. The mother of one of the Moor's murders I believe suffered in such a way although I dont know what comfort it brings knowing who killed your child, it must be absolutely horrendous.

Louise Frank
.
I don't know either Trudy

Noel O'Gara
.
This thread needs to be revisited now that we can see the case that sparked the confession which would be advised by the police to Clegg and indeed Clegg would be watching out for all these precedents and be fully advised on them in the law library of crime.
Anna Banks killer was sentenced to four years in jail for manslaughter. That meant he would be out at the end of 2012.
Tabak was already held in jail for eight months.
He was isolated and had no visitors or friends. He was treated as a pariah who was holding out on the police.
Just a few weeks after he was briefed about the sentencing of Anna Banks killer he agreed to confess to manslaughter, on Clegg's advice.
For the eight months before that he was isolated, friendless, depended on Clegg as his rock of life, and when Clegg came to him and showed him the facts of this other strangulation case, this broken man agreed to cooperate.
Thats why he cried throughout the trial and held his head in his hands.
The alternative, Clegg advised him, was to resist and they have your dna and her blood on your car and all those porn decomposition videos etc etc. A jury will convict you and you will never get out.
The choice was stark and the time to trial was running out.
.

Facebook User
.
Noel, Why would Tabak want to know how long it takes for a body to decompose?
Why was his saliva found on her body?
Why was there blood traces found in the boot of his car?
Why did he say that he had only meant to kiss her but ended up killing her instead?

Susan O Connell
.
@ Noel
'This thread needs to be revisited now that we can see the case that sparked the confession which would be advised by the police to Clegg and indeed Clegg would be watching out for all these precedents and be fully advised on them in the law library of crime.
Anna Banks killer was sentenced to four years in jail for manslaughter. That meant he would be out at the end of 2012.
Tabak was already held in jail for eight months.
He was isolated and had no visitors or friends. He was treated as a pariah who was holding out on the police.
Just a few weeks after he was briefed about the sentencing of Anna Banks killer he agreed to confess to manslaughter, on Clegg's advice.'
Noel-once again you are twisting facts to suit yourself-Tabak unburdened/confessed to the chaplain on 22 feb 2011-he pled guilty to the 'manslaughter' of Jo in May 2011-Daniel Lancaster's sentence was given in August 2011
I fail to see how this mans sentence would have influenced Tabak-seeing how he pled guilty 2 months before-and admitted he was going to plead guilty 5 months before this man was even sentenced-Clegg must have awsome powers to forsee what the jury in that case was going to find Lancaster guilty of-try sticking to the facts Noel-because to be honest you completly suck at your 'ramblings'

Noel O'Gara
.
Susan, he was only sounding the chaplain at that stage because he had nobody to confide in, no friend, and only Clegg to advise him of his future.
This extract read out in court explains it.
'Tabak’s statement, signed on September 22, less than three weeks before the start of the trial, was read to Dr Russell Delaney, the pathologist who examined Miss Yeates’s body.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz1gbAIzBwM
Louise,
he made the search for decomposition after he became aware that Jo was missing, presumed dead by him and many others.
His saliva was not found on her body. That is a lie Louise and you know it.
His blood traced allegedly with dna was found in his car by police who planted it there or lied because that was four weeks after the murder and they had made such a load of failures that they darent release Tabak after Chris Jefferies debacle.
They knew that Tabak would crack in time and that he had no alibi. They also knew that he had porn on his pc and they used that to ostracise him from his girlfriend. He had no friend left with his family in Holland and not able to visit him.
Thats why that chaplain was planted as a police agent to sound him.
After eight months of that anybody would crack and go for a deal of two years.
That confession was only winkled out of him in the nick of time for his trial. They promised him leniency but you should know that a policeman's promise is only to be treated with the utmost distrust. But he didnt know that.
.

2
Diane Shepherd
.
Thankfully its just IN YOUR OPINION noel.
And you have got it 100% wrong as proven in a court of law that was transparent to everyone.

Noel O'Gara

sure, its in my opinion Diane, but he signed that confession just three weeks before his trial commenced and only a few weeks after the Anna Banks case sentence of 2 years for manslaughter was handed down for a similar murder/manslaughter.
That was a powerful incentive for a man resigned to his fate as a falsely accused person, to confess.
.

Lynda J Lewis
.
Yes I can see where you are coming from Noel. Murder - life imprisonment, manslaughter - 2 - 8 years. He may well have chosen the option that would mean a lower sentence - damage limitation.

Facebook User
.
Noel, It dosen't matter when he looked up how long it takes for a body to decompose, but the fact he looked it up at all! It's obvious he was hoping that poor Jo would 'disintegrate' before the police found her.
And the DNA did match Tabak.
On the Crimewatch programme a while back, it was said that it did. He was reluctant to have his swab taken because it probably dawned on him that he may have left something behind.
As for planted evidence in the boot of his car, I don't believe anything was planted.
He was caught out by his own evil and is where he belongs.
Sure he went for 'damage limitation' by pleading manslaughter. He was hoping there would be less damage to himself.
Thankfully the jury saw through him.

Diane Shepherd
.
He knew he was guilty, hence his confession and more than likely embellishment of the actual event.
He was not stitched up etc etc ...
He knew unless he confessed to manslaughter he would have the full weight of evidence against him in a murder trial. The man is not as stupid as you paint him. In fact he is manipulative and deceptive to the core.... I'm 100% certain that Tanja would agree.

1
Sue Jeffries
.
I am just grateful we didnt have Lynda Noel or Philip on the jury.
Justice was done, I thank God these silly suggestions are just words, and will have no bearing on Tabaks freedom.

Noel O'Gara
.
Louise, what exactly did he look up about decomposition or how did they say he requested this information?
If Tabak were guilty of the murder and hiding of her body in LL, it makes no sense that he would look up the possible effects of decomposition of a body he knew was under the snow and would be found as soon as it thawed out?
It just doesnt make any sense because any idiot would know that the snow was bound to melt in a week or two maximum and the body would be there.
So decomposition was not something her killer would need to consider for a minute. Her killer would have been literally holding his breath and very much agitated and excited, during that time they were searching for Jo.
However, an innocent man who didnt know that Jo's body was hidden under snow might have been minded to think that she had been hidden by her killer somewhere, and Tabak being a very interested geek, wanted to know how long it would remain recognisable or how many weeks or months were there in which to find her if she had been dumped somewhere in the countryside.
I dont see that as sinister at all, I see it as the enquiring mind of an innocent person.
Louise, The prosecutors admitted in that tv documentary that the dna they claimed to have, which incidentally they said led them to arrest Tabak, was not conclusive enough to charge him with. But then they claimed to find dna from blood on his car and that gave them what they said they needed.
I believe that if they released Tabak after the CJ cock up, they would all be sacked and Scotland Yard called in.
thats why they stitched up Tabak.
.

Sue Jeffries
.
I believe that if they released Tabak after the CJ cock up, they would all be sacked and Scotland Yard called in.
thats why they stitched up Tabak.
So, after making themselves look stupid by arresting CJ on the guidance of Tabak they then decide to stitch up Tabk? Yeah, that makes perfect sense Noel. NOT.

Facebook User
.
Noel, He 'googled' it. How long does it take for a human body to decompose'.
Why? Because he was 'ignorant' of morbid details such as this IMO. He had put his fantasy into reality but I doubt he had ever killed before or had much information about this sort of thing.



Lynda J Lewis
.
Louise, do you believe he planned it from the time he knew Greg was going to be away? Or do you think it was all on impulse - i.e. he saw the opportunity and took it?
If he planned it, did he plan the whole thing, or did he think 'ah, her boyfriend's going to be away I wonder if she'll want some company' or perhaps he really did see her through the kitchen window as he was walking past and everything went terribly wrong?

Sue Jeffries
.
There is no coincidence about it. Tabak saw a window of opportunity that weekend. Lets not forget he was logging into his porn 7am the morning of Jos death. Only someone obsessed with porn would be logging in to look at it that early on.

Lynda J Lewis
.
Yes that does seem a bit early. Maybe 'obsessed' isn't media speculation after all.

Facebook User
.
I think he saw the opportunity and took it. But, he knew she was alone.
I don't believe his story about Joanna beckoning him through the kitchen window, but he probably saw her through the window. She would be in there with the light on and the most probable scenario would be he rang her doorbell and she answered.

Sue Jeffries
.
A bit early Lynda? I would personally be VERY worried if I noticed my hubby watching porn at that time. I know there is no set time to watch things per say but that early implies he was viewing it as soon as he awoke, and that definately implies a fixation. And not a good fixation either. The fact he viewed it the day Jo was killed cannot be ignored imo. I think Tabak was a bubble waiting to burst for many months, possibly years and that night, for reasons probably that will only ever be know to tabak, he chose to seek out Jo, with dark intentions, at best to make a sexual pass, at worst to kill her intentionally. Either way he was found guilty of murder as the judge said if he intended to cause 'serious harm' Which I think we can all agree a hand around someones throat is certainly not 'play fighting' So the jury made the right decision.

Noel O'Gara
.
Tabak's entrance to his flat was on the other side of the building where his car was parked. That was the main entrance. He would be highly unlikely to go past Jo's window or her pathway as it was not his way in or out of his flat.
Sue J, they can stitch up people quite easily. It can be based on misplaced suspicions that they will not reconsider.
They need to target a person who has no alibi, number one stitch up rule.
He lives close to the crime and knew the victim.
Then if he has a bit of criminal history that makes it much easier because the tabloid press will demonise him on that one.
Dna or the smell of it will do the rest for the jury and the judge.
In all those cases they oppose bail and most criminals know that they stitch up people regularly, so they dont crib because they know the police form and they accept it as part of the game.
Louise, he googled most of those matters after Jo was reported missing, and he presumed her to be dead. Many people thought that also but most hoped she would be found alive or that she was being held somewhere.
I thought that the only thing he googled before she was reported missing was the search on LL and all the rest of it was post Jo's disappearance.
Dont you think that if Tabak was really the killer then he must have been an awful fool to perform all those searches on his pc. What a cunning killer you have there Louise.
But as an innocent next door neighbour he only did what many other men would do in such an eventuality. Those searches on google would be normal for a man interested in finding out what might have befallen his next door neighbour while half the county was out searching for her and half the country was talking about her. If he did nothing on his pc you might think he was hiding something.
The LL search was equally very likely searched to track his route to that balloon party, not as the police suggested to look at where he had dumped a body.
If he really had been Jo's killer and did a google search of where he hid her body in LL, dont you think he was incredibly stupid? He would have known well that his pc leaves a record of his searching. As I said before LL would only be one part of the map that he brought up on his monitor. But the police chose to highlight that incriminating suggestion.
As the story developed hourly on Sky TV, I also confess to having kept up with the enquiry by searching google for many leads as did thousands of others all over the planet. I'm sure Miss Farmery might find similar searches on my pc as was on Tabak's, including the google map of Bristol.
I cant imagine how a barrister can defend a client by calling him 'frankly disgusting' and other equally damning statements.
He must have been in the pay of the crown under the free legal aid scheme. I tell you Tabak would have been better with no lawyer than Clegg.
With free legal aid like that, one would be far better to sit alone and just keep your mouth shut.
.

1
Sue Jeffries
.
Sue J, they can stitch up people quite easily. It can be based on misplaced suspicions that they will not reconsider.
They need to target a person who has no alibi, number one stitch up rule.
He lives close to the crime and knew the victim.
Then if he has a bit of criminal history that makes it much easier because the tabloid press will demonise him on that one.
Dna or the smell of it will do the rest for the jury and the judge.
Noel, if the cops wanted an easy life why didnt they just stitch Greg up? Yourself and several others would have happily believed that so why didnt they make life easier and stitch the bf up for it? Far easier to find dna on him

Facebook User
.
Sue, Oh yes, the 'thoughts' would have been with him for some period of time, the duration of which only he knows.
He would think about it and think about it over time until he had to do it. Try it out for real.
The 'idea and concept' would be there in his head even if he didn't 'plan' that particular murder.
It dosen't change anything of course, but maybe, there was some remorse in that courtroom. I don't really have an opinion about that, at least not at the present time.
But his actions are of course irrevocable.

Sue Jeffries
.
Louise I personally feel the tears were for show and probably on Cleggs advice so as to look remorseful. It is funny how when sentenced to murder there was no reaction at all. One would aexpect a stitched up man to be crying from the rooftops yet Tabak remained emotionless. Realising he didnt need to fake tears now as his fate was sealed.

Noel O'Gara
.
sure Sue J, Greg had the opportunity, his dna was all over Jo and the flat and the clothes strewn all around the place and her knickers and earrings found under the duvet etc were all designed to point to an abduction following some sort of sex attack. All her personal things purse keys phone etc were there in her coat and bag but when the cops came after midnight, they were a pair of bobbies on the night beat driving around town watching out for drunk drivers and such disorders.
They came and made their reports probably next day. Then things got hotter when the parents realised the seriousness of Jo's disappearance and searches began in the snow and Greg appeared to be distressed and told them about his trip to Sheffield. Then they got on to the Sheffield cops and they made enquiries with the brother and filed a report and the days went by. Greg was by now a witness and not a suspect. Then on Christmas day Jo's body was found and it became a murder investigation and the elementary car, phone and computer searches hadnt been made and time was gone by and Greg was already eliminated by DCI Jones.
So the answer is Sue J that they believed that it was a missing person case for a week. That was a failure on their part.
All that stuff all over the flat and a struggle took place and yet Tabak didnt leave a trace of his dna or fingerprints or a rib of his hair in her flat. Yet he left so much 'evidence' on his pc.
Their failure was to positively eliminate Greg and his car immediately while people can remember things.
As I said before they eliminated Sutcliffe 12 times and they still got it wrong.
.

1
Sue Jeffries
.
So the answer is Sue J that they believed that it was a missing person case for a week. That was a failure on their part.
Noel I really believe they thought it murder from day one. Jo left all her things at home and had no reason to just go missing.
The fact is police if they wanted a stitch up could have framed Greg and you would happily have believed that as would a good majority of others Im sure. Yet instead they choose to first botch up with CJ and then risk looking utterly stupid by arresting someone every snob in the UK would find hard to believe was a killer. There is no logic in your argument Noel. None at all.

Facebook User
.
Sue & Noel, Interesting posts!
I think I'll re-cap a little from the reports.
Goodnight both.

Noel O'Gara
.
ok Sue J, you think the police thought it was a murder from day one and I thought the same as did many others including Tabak, a next door neighbour who found himself in the eye of the storm.
That gave him a better reason than most others to get on his pc and start investigating all aspects of the case.
With all those suspicious circumstances it was all the more reason that they should have been very suspicious of the bf from the moment of him reporting her missing.
His behaviour in delaying reporting it is inexplicable to many. How could you not be alarmed if you came home to find all those coats thrown around the place, your girlfriend's knickers thrown on the ground when you know she is very tidy about her clothes and her earrings, one broken under the duvet, presumably the bed disturbed also. Then there were many more things that alarmed the parents when they entered the flat yet Greg was sitting there on his laptop.
Surely the first thing you would do would be to phone her and you would find her phone immediately and search her history of calls.
That would show him that she didnt make a call since Friday night and that should have sent alarm bells ringing in his brain immediately.
In my opinion the police failure to give his car the full forensic treatment was incompetence.
The obvious staging of a struggle within the flat should have given them cause to be very suspicious of why anybody would do that.
Their concentration in that first week was on finding Jo alive and that in my opinion was overlooking the obvious and hoping for miracles.
Greg spoke of Jo as if she was gone forever. He spoke of her in the past tense while everybody else was hoping against hope that she would be found alive.
You have no idea how pig headed some policemen are and if they do something such as eliminate a suspect and they are wrong, it is impossible to get them to put that right. They are just incapable of admitting that they were wrong and their bosses are most reluctant to reprimand them also.
I guess that is the arrogance of power because one cock up admitted would mean his career is blighted with that black mark.
So by the time the murder investigation got underway Greg was not a suspect and they were looking at CJ.
.

Eva Gietl
.
@Noel:
You have a very different point of view on what normal relationship behaviour is, so I will not discuss with you why someone wouldn't call the police for 4 hours.
"you think the police thought it was a murder from day one and I thought the same as did many others including Tabak, a next door neighbour who found himself in the eye of the storm."
Day one in this case is the night from Sunday to Monday. Why did VT start googling all the relevant things on Saturday which would be "Day one minus 1"? If he had started "Day one plus one" (=Monday) I might agree to your reasoning. But that's not the case!
"In my opinion the police failure to give his car the full forensic treatment was incompetence."
Where is your source that the police didn't give his car the "full forensic treatment"?
"Their concentration in that first week was on finding Jo alive and that in my opinion was overlooking the obvious and hoping for miracles.
Greg spoke of Jo as if she was gone forever. He spoke of her in the past tense while everybody else was hoping against hope that she would be found alive."
To my knowledge, the police were already searching flats in the neighbourhood a day after JY was reported missing. That doesn't sound to me like they hoped to find her alive.
Furthermore, it wasn't only GR who talked about her in the past tense; her father did as well.

Sue Jeffries
.
Noel are you aware of how missing person enquiries work? Obviously not. Had Greg rang the police 4 hours after being home his call would have been logged and that's about it. You have to be missing 24 hours to be taken seriously so all Greg would have looked like some stifling irrational person thinking the worst.
Also as Eva said the Father also referred to her past tense? Is he in on it too? No, we all know Greg is on your hate list for whatever reason.


Lynda J Lewis
.
The father did use past tense when talking about Joanna - 'she was...' i did think that odd at the time, but on refelction i think they all knew what had happened and what the outcome would be from very early on. i know that if my daughter disappeared with no explanation i would get an immediate sense of foreboding as I'd know that something would be very seriously wrong as we are very close, just like the Yeates family. They knew they'd never see her alive again.

Noel O'Gara
.
Eva, Tabak only googled the map before Jo was reported missing as far as I can tell.
The other googles were after he became aware she was gone when he met her distraught parents on the lawn at about 3.0am.
You seem to be incapable of addressing the issues raised and you only refute my points.
That entrenched opinion that you express is common to your group of similar closed minds.
You just cant address why Greg waited more than four hours to get alarmed when there were warning signs everywhere and all around him.
He came back to a cold flat. not a properly locked door, lights on, no girlfriend to greet him, the cat half starved and yet he didnt see anything wrong.
All her personal stuff was thrown there and he knew that she hadnt contacted anybody since 8.30 Friday night.
You dont see anything wrong with that either. You cant address the staging of the apartment. Therefore to you Tabak did sexually assault Jo on the bed during which her earrings were pulled from her ears and there was a violent struggle with Tabak and her fighting for her life during which she received 43 injuries including a broken nose. Then he redressed her and cleaned up all his dna and prints etc and turned the oven off.
Or maybe that never happened and for no reason he entered her flat and he choked her with one hand in 20 seconds while she dropped to the floor and then he staged the sex attack on the bed after he changed his mind and carried her away to his flat, stuffed her into a bag and went shopping.
Thats one for the birds and the birds swallowed it.
.

1
Eva Gietl
.
@Noel:
Stop telling me what I think. You get it wrong too many times.
"You just cant address why Greg waited more than four hours to get alarmed when there were warning signs everywhere and all around him."
I don't find it weird that he waited for four hours before calling the police because that's what I would do. I have discussed that a month ago, there's no point to go over and over it again: clearly, you and I have very different expectations about this.
"You cant address the staging of the apartment. Therefore to you Tabak did sexually assault Jo on the bed during which her earrings were pulled from her ears and there was a violent struggle with Tabak and her fighting for her life during which she received 43 injuries including a broken nose. Then he redressed her and cleaned up all his dna and prints etc and turned the oven off."
No, according to me that is not what happened at all. I don't think there was a violent struggle because I do believe him that he strangled her with one hand for a very short time. I think he was surprised that she died so quickly.
ETA:
"You seem to be incapable of addressing the issues raised and you only refute my points."
I think it is very interesting that you think me incapable of addressing points raised while you do not address your points that I have refuted: where's the source for the police not giving the full forensic treatment to his car? Why do you think the police were treating it as a missing person case for the first week? What about JY's father referring to her in the past tense?
And I refute your points because they are not based in reality.

Noel O'Gara
.
so did Tabak stage the struggle by throwing everything around and the earrings and her underwear?
you dont find it weird re waiting four hours ok Eva I just think that is odd behaviour.
Why ask me for the source of Greg's car being checked. If you are so sure it was given the full treatment why dont you show your source for that assumption?
I am telling you that it was not checked out because the media would have shown it being towed away like they did CJ's cars and others.
If Jo had been strangled and then transported in that car there would have been evidence of that struggle in it but it was never checked out because they relied on the Sheffield cops report from the brother and his alibi.
A brother's alibi is very suspect but not this one. You are happy to believe it.
.

Sue Jeffries
.
Noel, who are you to judge how someone should react to a sutiation like this? You have a very colourful past and are certainly in no position to judge others.

Lynda J Lewis
.
Noel: I don't think they (the police) would have taken just Greg's brother's word - I believe they would have made further enquiries, i.e. CCTV. Usually in a missing person/murder investigation it's a process of elimination, and the first person they would have to eliminate would surely be Greg, since (as other cases have shown) it is often the partner who is the primary suspect.

Noel O'Gara
.
correct Lynda, but they didnt do any checks other than the brother's statement.
There were suggestions that his movements could be checked by phone masts and cctv cameras, but that would require quite a bit of time and forensic technical stuff that is beyond the ordinary cop's ability.
For the early days of the enquiry, Jo was a missing person, presumed to have been abducted because of the evidence of the struggle that was staged in her flat by her killer.
This is an aspect of the crime that Tabak's accusers can never address.
Because they thought she was taken away while still alive, it was obvious that this was not just a sex crime.
It was also obvious that it was not a theft related crime.
That made it a mystery for the police and so the searches and appeals were the order of the day.
Sue J, my past is what gives me the insight into police incompetence and corruption, meaning rearranging the goal posts to suit their purpose, which is another way of putting a stitch up to solve the case and get a conviction in court.
Once they get that they can crow that they got him and point to the jury as the arbiters of justice.
They forget about their altering the goal posts and lies and fabricated evidence.
.

1
Lynda J Lewis
.
I like people with a colourful past! It would be a terribly boring world if everyone was the same, nobody ever questioned anything and free speech was banned. We are so fortunate that we live in a democracy where we can express our opinions - we should celebrate that.

Sue Jeffries
.
I dont think theres anything particulularly likeable about Noels colourful past Lynda. He is certainly in no position to be criticizing anyones actions.

Lynda J Lewis
.
All he does is defend those who he feels have been victims of a miscarriage of justice. I think that's quite noble of him.

1
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
.
Sue said: "I dont think theres anything particulularly likeable about Noels colourful past Lynda. He is certainly in no position to be criticizing anyones actions."
In this season of goodwill, let's remember the words of the great philosopher after whom Christmas is named:
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone."

1
Sue Jeffries
.
Lynda if you cant see the hypocrisy in Noel professing to care about innocent people while waging a war of words on an innocent man, who Noel would readily see in prison, then I don't expect you to see Noel as anything but 'noble'. Personally though, trying to get someone off the hook while readily blaming another innocent person, doesn't make any kind of sense to me. Especially when Noel clearly doesnt even research matters properly, he's been corrected numerous times yet still he insists he is right

Noel O'Gara
.
and that great philosopher was also the victim of a stitch up that half the world still laments.
At his trial the begrudgers voices drowned out his few supporters.
Things havent changed.
Sue J, you would silence debate in order to sustain an official verdict just because it is official. The fact that it was developed out of a lie doesnt bother you and while you claim to respect or even love Jo, you are not willing to consider whether the man convicted of her murder is rightly convicted and if so, then it means her killer is still a free man and you clearly support that possibility.
.

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
.
Noel, the death of Christ was the greatest stitch-up of all time, wasn't it?

Noel O'Gara
.
well the man didnt commit a crime and they tried him, convicted him and murdered him. It was a show trial by the authorities.
When he was arrested by the cops all his mates ran for their lives because they were terrified that they would end up on a cross also.
.


2
Sue Jeffries
.
No Noel, I would simply have YOU silenced as you continue to point the finger at an INNOCENT man an all while trying to convince people like Lynda you actually care about innocent people! What a joke, you're a complete hypocrite Noel.

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
.
Noel: "well the man didnt commit a crime and they tried him, convicted him and murdered him. It was a show trial by the authorities."
True this is.

Facebook User
.
Noel, I agree that if the police had failed to check poor Greg's car then it would be incompetent of them. But we don't know they didn't.
It wouldn't have to be done in the public eye, not everything is contrary to what some people may think. I'm sure the police would check his car when they checked the mileage on his clock for that weekend.
I agree with you that if it's true that Jo's underwear was strewn around and things looked in disarray in the flat on Greg's return, it would look odd. But I believe Greg must have thought that Jo had done it! He did say he felt irritated and a bit angry because he thought she had been lazy.
He would be tired, hungry and cold when he came home and he probably thought Joanna had gone off to some friend or party so he would wait.
Anything to do with murder would be the last thing on his mind.

Noel O'Gara
.
Sue J, I am pointing out the obvious evidence that has been ignored in this case because it doesnt suit the case against Tabak.
Why dont you address the scenario that Greg says he encountered in his flat when he returned and reconcile it with Tabak's confession.
Clearly we know that Jo suffered a violent struggle for her life that resulted in 43 injuries to her body including a broken or dislocated nose.
The obvious implication was that her killer scattered these clothes and earrings etc in a struggle, or her killer scattered them in a deliberate effort to deceive the police for some reason.
You obviously believe that Tabak did it all, yet his confession doesnt fit that.
You really dont know what happened in that flat or indeed if she was murdered there at all, and if somebody else who murdered her staged that scene for the police to deceive them into thinking that she had been abducted in a sexual assault.
Remember Sue J that a premeditated killer will never admit to murder. He will resort to lies to protect himself. I have experience of knowing the real Ripper and that was a much more sinister situation let me assure you.
.

2
Sue Jeffries
.
Noel please stop making comparisons between the Ripper and this case. There are none!
Also please do the Yeates family and Greg the courtesy of reigning in your ignoraNT disrespectful posts tomorow, the anniversary of Jo's death. Let's see if you are capable of showing an ounce of compassion for the yeates family, or if your compassion to help her killer overrides this.

Noel O'Gara
.
There are comparisons. The Ripper was a calculating killer who went out to commit each murder that he did in a deliberate way, to a chosen place where he knew there would be potential victims, at a time when they were most likely to be intoxicated, and he was dressed in the best possible attire so as to assure them that he was a respectable gentleman. Then he sweet talked them into coming with him to a dark corner where he had total control over them for that moment when he pulled a hammer from his pocket.
Joanna Yeates was last seen walking home to her flat on a cold dark night on a tree lined avenue in Bristol with very few people about because of the cold.
When next seen she had 43 injuries on her body, a broken nose and no evidence of a sexual assault or theft, when one week later, she was found under the snow in what had been a botched attempt by her killer to hide her body after he murdered her.
She had been strangled to death, which could only be done in a sudden attack by a trusted person.
That trusted person whom she had allowed close access had deliberately planned not only to kill her but to hide her body in a quarry where it probably would have remained for several months had he been successful in getting it over the wall.
The Ripper and Jo's killer had motive to kill. They both watched as the police stitched up somebody else for their crimes and both are free men today.
They would never admit their crimes and they would tell lies to divert anybody who accused them.
Your pretended feelings for the family Sue J is not for them because you know very well that they will have to grieve alone and not just for today but for the rest of their lives.
If you had any real feelings for Jo you would be weighing and assessing the strength of the police investigation and the strength of the case against Tabak rather than trying to shore up a very flawed verdict against a patsy who found himself in a trap that he could never have envisaged in a dozen lifetimes.
His confession has no merit or credibility because of the way it was blackmailed out of him.
We are one year on today and while the case might be officially solved and you would like me and everybody like me to accept that official verdict, I can tell you that it is thirty years on from the Ripper conviction and there have been dozens of other innocent women murdered by this man since that time and I remain with a pump gun very close to my hand if he ever came near me.
If a wrongful conviction happens because of police incompetence or a stitch up, it not only perverts the crime that it purports to solve but it is another serious crime against the person stitched up and his family.
.

Sue Vendone
.
It has always been the state of the flat that makes me question if they have the right man. The evidence accepted by the prosecution does seem at odds with the state of the flat which was ether staged to look like a struggle took place or indeed a struggle did take place, in which case the lack of VT DNA is incredible. So what do we have to believe, that he walked in, did the crime within minutes and calmly took the body away? Or that he attempted a sexual advance, it went wrong hence the scattered earrings, broken pedestal clothes all over the hall but managed not to drop a hair or drop of blood or any DNA at all.....and after inflicting so many injuries he then cleaned up. It is one or the other it cannot be both.

Noel O'Gara
.
Thats the trouble with confessions Sue.
The W Yorkshire police had eliminated Sutcliffe a dozen times, because his blood group was O while the Ripper was B.
So when he was arrested in Sheffield by two uniformed bobbies and confessed to being the Ripper, they were all elated and due to media and political pressure, they did a deal with this copycat killer for his confessions to all the real Ripper's murders as well as his own 4 killings which had been mixed up with the real Ripper because of the real Ripper's letters to the cops including them in the count.
Tabak's confession was taken from a broken man who saw his only hope of ever getting free as a deal to confess to manslaughter. He signed that deal just a few weeks before his trial was due to begin and he stuck by his agreement despite not knowing what really happened in that flat or if Jo ever got back to it that Friday night last year.
Tabak foolishly stuck to his part of the deal because Clegg had him convinced that he would not be convicted of the murder charge.
From the moment of his arrest, everybody who met him or even saw him had him branded as the killer of Joanna and he was treated as a pariah who was holding out on the police. Even his lawyers believed he was the killer because of that dna lie. The man had lost all hope of ever clearing his name. His girlfriend had been turned against him with all the porn allegations and his family who couldnt visit him because they were in Holland were aghast to hear him admit to the killing but they were unaware of how the police can break down the strongest of individuals by isolation and hopelessness.
Thats why he didnt know what happened to Jo that night last year and his confessions dont make any sense or fit with the known facts. Thats why this innocent man buried his head in his hands and cried throughout the trial.
.

Philip Hollingbery
.
In the good old days, when it was possible on this forum to question alternative scenarios for this crime without necessarily being set upon by a pack of gloating hyenas (or whatever it is that hyenas do socially, Admin) - in the good old days, one idea we discussed was that Joanna had been killed by a contract killer who mistook her for someone else. It seemed a bit far-fetched at the time, as contract killing (a bit like strangulation fetishes) seemed to belong mainly to the realms of fiction.
But when I was in South Wales at the weekend I heard about this recent case - even more bizarre than the idea of Tabak confessing to a crime he didn't commit:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8793361/Boy-stabbed-to-death-at-home-in-botched-contract-killing.html
Two bumblingly incompetent men under the influence of narcotics went to the wrong address in Cardiff and murdered a teenager before the eyes of his parents in mistake for a family father who was in debt to a loan shark - for a pathetically small hire.

Eva Gietl
.
@Philip:
"in the good old days, one idea we discussed was that Joanna had been killed by a contract killer who mistook her for someone else"
No, we didn't. If my memory serves me right, only you discussed this idea.

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Eva,
It doesn't and we did. It was someone else who imaginatively suggested that the intended victim might have been Tanja Morson, whose father might have made some serious enemies in his career as an attorney. I would like to give that someone else a brownie point for not towing the party line, but alas I do not remember who it was.
@Noel, Well done, by the way!

Lynda J Lewis
.
I remember that too Philip. I can't recall who posted it though, or what thread it was on.

Dyna Victoria
.
Can we investigate Tanya's Dad further (did he upset someone and it was a case of mistaken identity?).
Sarah Shaw 10 months ago..
"If more than one person did it..." round about page 17

Sue Jeffries
.
Bloody hell. This says it all.

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
.
Dyna, you're amazing.


Facebook User
.
Yeah, and that was 10 months ago!

Philip Hollingbery
3 months ago
Be that as it may, Mr Clegg is a detached and crazy person who just did not notice that his client had been so terrified of everything that happened to him in the preceding nine months that he had been tricked and intimidated by the police into pleading guilty of manslaughter even though he had killed no one - for fear of a worse charge of possessing illegal child porn that was totally fabricated. If you don't believe Tabak was terrified, just read what he said at all of the five preliminary hearings - it takes about 10 seconds altogether. He never said anything except to confirm his name and age.

Sue Jeffries
3 months ago
It's hard for any lawyer, even the best, to get a guilty man off with murder. Especially when their defendant makes Pinocchio look trustworthy and truthful!

Lynda J Lewis
3 months ago
It looks like there's been a lot of activity on this forum today lol!

Debra Ann Clements
2 months ago
@Sue Vendone 'It has always been the state of the flat that makes me question if they have the right man. The evidence accepted by the prosecution does seem at odds with the state of the flat which was ether staged to look like a struggle took place or indeed a struggle did take place, in which case the lack of VT DNA is incredible. So what do we have to believe, that he walked in, did the crime within minutes and calmly took the body away? Or that he attempted a sexual advance, it went wrong hence the scattered earrings, broken pedestal clothes all over the hall but managed not to drop a hair or drop of blood or any DNA at all.....and after inflicting so many injuries he then cleaned up. It is one or the other it cannot be both.'
Greg said he cleaned up the flat after he found it in such disarray. Tabak left no DNA traces or finger prints or fibres which would be impossible had such a violent attack taken place. There was no sexual assault either, but Joanna's earring in the bed would suggest otherwise.
David Yeates, 63, an IT specialist, told The Sunday Telegraph: "We knew what the flat was like. We know what it's normally like.
"WE KNOW WHAT SHE DOES AND DOESN'T DO," It is obvious the flat was too tidy as Joanna's parents express here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/8225193/Parents-of-missing-architect-Joanna-Yeates-we-knew-she-had-been-abducted.html
So from Greg's account of the state of the flat; Vincent Tabak CANNOT have been the murderer, it is not only totally unbelievable but physically impossible not to have left any forenics whatsoever at the scene, despite the clean up by Greg. And in fact Greg's account of the scene of the crime exonerates Vincent Tabak as the killer!

Sue Graham
2 months ago
Debra, or should l say Bob? All your statement above states, is that it might not of taken place in Jo's flat. That doesn't mean that this exonerates VT as the killer.

Dyna Victoria
2 months ago
I think we can ascertain that something happened in the hall..Greg noticed that a green pedestal table was broken..and that there were shoes/boots shrewn across the floor..
I never saw the surfboard come out of the flat, which I believe was kept in the hall..but the sheet that it was stood on did..suggesting maybe that the forensics hoped to find shoeprint evidence..
Why they took the door off I dont know..I do remember that a locksmith who had put a newlock on the door months before, was traced back via his dna on the door..
The bathroom as we saw, was covered in fingerprint dust..but seemingly didnt reveal any real evidence..
ALL the carpets in the flat were taken up and away..
ALL the bedding was taken away..
I think the police were pretty certain that jo was killed in her flat..
one thing that does puzzle me is that CJ saw VT at 9pm with his car on the drive "warming up"..Jo was in tescos at 8.39 and still had to walk home..the timeline is more than tight..CJ says he did not hear a scream as he was parking his car on the road at approx 9pm..just before he saw VT...just my thoughts...

Sarah Perry
2 months ago
Why should we presume that she was killed in the flat just because the struggle occured in the flat?
If Vincent was only in the flat briefly with a coat and maybe for some time even with gloves on as it was cold.
If Joanna managed to get away from vincent for a few seconds she could have easily ran through the hall knocking the table and coat stand as she went through.
If she managed to get just outside the door onto the path this could explain lots of things.
How the screams were heard across the road
Why no blood / DNA in flat
Why Vincent carried her to his flat instead of straight from her flat to car
Why he bought rock salt to melt snow that may have shown a struggle or contained DNA

Sue Vendone
2 months ago
Sarah;Why should we presume that she was killed in the flat just because the struggle occured in the flat?
Good point, but such a struggle would leave VT DNA in the flat. The struggle left injuries and he may have had scratches, hair loss etc. If there was no struggle in the flat why was it made to appear that it was? Do you think VT would go back into the flat to stage the scene. It is the biggest mystery.

Lynda J Lewis
2 months ago
It is indeed a mystery. If someone was fighting for their life I would imagine that the killer would lose some hair and skin flakes in he process, yet no DNA was found there. I find it hard to believe that someone would leave the flat in disarray, I would have thought they would do the opposite.

Sue Vendone
2 months ago
Lynda
Precisely....her keys were found in her bag so if VT had been in the flat and the struggle carried on outside, did he leave the door open or did it close shut behind him. If it closed and he could not get back in to clean up why was his DNA not left in there, foot prints etc. On the other hand if he went back in to clean every nook and cranny, not a single hair left etc, the flat should not have been left with coats all over the floor etc?

Vicki Roust
2 months ago
Wow, its amazing the similarities in writing style between Debra Ann Clements and Admin. Admin, I think you have a twin!!

Noel O'Gara
2 months ago
I'm beginning to wonder if those nice police liason officers are on duty on this forum because it is more than a passing of opinions that is taking place here. When you think about it, they are tasked with doing the PR in chaperoning the victims relatives and ensuring that they are onside and all their questions and reservations are dealt with so that they go on tv and radio and then convince the nation that they got the right man.
Coming on here and consistently emphasising that Tabak was guilty without any doubt becomes a bit repetitive if they were just ordinary housewives. They would have given up long ago.
They have employed a pattern of lies and concerted attempts to denounce me and Philip. In my experience this is orchestrated.
.

Sue Graham
2 months ago
Noel, With any luck, you'll be next to follow Philip!

Vicki Roust
2 months ago
Tis the season for new hobbies tra la la la!



Sue Graham
2 months ago
Gardening's a good one! Bill & Ben lol

Vicki Roust
2 months ago
The Enid Blyghton "Secret Seven" now have whodunnit style mystery Jig Saw puzzles! Thought that might suit some! :-)

Eva Gietl
2 months ago
@Noel:
I am fed up with your obsession with housewives. Why should the women on here be housewives?
You know, in the 21st century, most women aren't housewives.

Noel O'Gara
2 months ago
exactly Dyna and why did the parents know very quickly that something was terribly wrong?
They had travelled for two or three hours on that cold snowy night from their beds in response to that phone call from Greg.
What he said to them was enough to get them really worried about Jo and yet he was in the flat looking at all that evidence of assault if he was to be believed, yet he hung around for more than four hours before alerting them.
Therefore it seems to me that he didnt tidy up too much because of what the parents said.
The killer was busy staging that scenario during those four hours while he was sweating on what to do next and because he had the opportunity he became the number one suspect. IMO.
.

Facebook User
2 months ago
Hi Dyna, You know it would be perfectly natural for Greg to tidy up a bit.
He said he thought that Jo had been a bit lazy and must have thought she'd caused the mess.
He also said he felt a bit angry about it.
He said she had a habit of opening bottles and leaving the tops off hence the cider bottle that he finished up.
He must have wondered what she'd been doing.

Sue Vendone
2 months ago
I have often wondered why Tabak would stage the evidence of a struggle

Noel O'Gara
2 months ago
Louise, just imagine for a second that he is the person who strangled Jo.
Can I ask you to just consider that for a while.
Would he then own up or would he make up a story?
Of course he would make up a story. He was angry and he drank her cider and tidied up.
You only have his word for all these things you accept and they stretch credibility.
you say it would be perfectly natural for him to tidy up. Many men wouldnt dream of doing that. How do you know Greg was the tidying type?
Sue V, If Tabak was the killer then he either conducted a violent assault on Jo or he would have had to return and do all those theatricals later. The only explanation other than that was that he took her to the bed where he pulled her earrings off in a struggle to sexually assault her and that assault went as far as the hall where things were knocked over and coats pulled from the wardrobe etc. It makes no sense with Tabak in the frame. The pizza receipt was placed on the table to show that she got back to the flat and that simple ploy seems to have convinced them all that she got back. It would have been in her pocket or her holdall until it was placed on the table by her killer. When the parents saw it perhaps it convinced them that she got back and that perception spread to the police.
.

Lynda J Lewis
2 months ago
'I have often wondered why Tabak would stage the evidence of a struggle'...
So have I. To my mind there are two possible scenarios. One is that (contrary to Tabak's evidence of how quickly death occurred) there was one hell of a struggle that lasted a good few minutes - hence the flat left in disarray, or the death didn't actually happen at the flat at all but was made to look like it had - with her belongings having been put there by someone.
If the first scenario happened, then why wasn't it cleaned up? Also why not remove Joanna's bag, phone, glasses etc. and take them elsewhere - why leave them there?
It doesn't make sense, which is why I have always believed that the second scenario is much more likely. If Tabak was a calculated as the prosecution would have us believe, then why didn't he take more care in getting rid of any evidence that something had taken place at the flat - he had plenty of time to do that. It seems like the flat being untidy was staged to me. I think the killing took place elsewhere.

Debra Ann Clements
2 months ago
If Tabak had really killed Joanna after a struggle in the flat as per the police and prosecution's claim, and Greg's statement that the flat was in total disarray then there would be forensics from Tabak all over the place - and yet unbelievably and incredibly there were none.
If Joanna was killed outside the flat, who would then want to stage that the killing had taken place inside the flat and also try to suggest a sexual assault by the earrings placed in Joanna's bed and one on the floor?
Greg stated that he found one earring on the floor and one in the bed.
'A close up image of her face, with blood stained short blonde hair was shown to the court. Miss Yeates’s eyes were closed and one of her earring studs was still in place'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8827404/Vincent-Tabak-weeps-in-dock-as-he-sees-pictures-of-Joanna-Yeates-dead-body.html

Noel O'Gara
2 months ago
Thats why Greg is still the number one suspect in my mind Debra.
If Tabak had gone to the trouble to carry Jo's dead body to his flat and then to his car intending to hide it somewhere, it doesnt make sense that he didnt take her bag and coat also to distance her from his flat.
Then a computer expert would be unlikely to know that there was a big quarry just over that small wall while Greg would have known about that quarry being working as a trainee architect.
.

1
Sarah Perry
2 months ago
I personally do not think the flat was staged. It is perfectly feasible that what i would class as the initial struggle took place in the flat for example he grabbed her and she got away but the main struggle where the injuries occured took place outside.
The only disarray described was a toppled pedastal and coats and shoes in hall.
This could easily have been caused by running through a hall.
Say for example he grabbed her in bedroom around wrists , no injuries or scratches she got away runs through hall scattering things as she or he knocks coat stand over and he grabs her again just outside where main struggle and injuries occur.
No need for DNA in flat


Sarah Perry
2 months ago
Noel
"If Tabak had gone to the trouble to carry Jo's dead body to his flat and then to his car intending to hide it somewhere, it doesnt make sense "
I feel this also but my explanation would be she died outside and he had a choice carry her to her flat or his.Would you risk taking her back to her flat when you know yours is empty for sure?

Sarah Perry
2 months ago
Dyna
"I dont know how her amethyst earrings may have come off..unless she hadnt been wearing them that day and they were knocked off the bedside table during a struggle..every girl knows that pierced earrings if tugged off will make your ear lobes bleed..or leave "rip" marks around the hole in the ear,"
I agree i think it possible they were knocked from the pedestal table or she had them in her hand taking them to the bedroom when the initial attack took place

Facebook User
2 months ago
Noel, I have considered what you say and yes a story could have been made up, but I don't believe it was and I am not going to libel a person who has been cleared by the police.
Tabak in his frame of mind could have gone crazy throwing her knickers around and all that.
Also he could have created a mess to try and implicate Greg.
He'd be wearing gloves for one thing, and Tabak's hair was very short so he wouldn't have to leave any traces of himself behind.
He was big and powerful and Jo would be 'pinned down' by him IMO.

Sue Vendone
2 months ago
Sarah, Lets suppose your theory is correct, that the flat was messed up but injuries happened outside. There is one important issue here....footprints. In the time frame he had and the supposed attack being spontaneous and not planned, I really doubt he took measures to cover his shoes. So when he ran from the flat, and the door shut behind him his prints would be all over.

Sarah Perry
2 months ago
Im not sure why you would think there would be footprints? If he had only used the path and it had not started snowing at that point why would there be footprints? If anything his shoes may have been slightly damp but if no mud why foot prints? Plus if he did get invited in if there was a mat he may have wiped his feet ;-).I walk into my tiled kitchen all the time with no foot prints.
I think it also has to be considered that Greg , family , police had all walked through the hall "after" the snowfall with wet feet so i doubt if anything would be recognisable

Sue Vendone
2 months ago
Sarah
Footwear evidence, as well latent fingerprint evidence, is classified into three categories of crime scene prints:
Visible Prints
Plastic Prints
Latent Prints
The Visible Prints: A visible print occurs when the footwear steps into a foreign substance and is contaminated by it, and then comes in contact with a clean surface and is pressed onto that surface. This print can be visibly seen by the naked eye without any other aids.
The most common visible prints are prints left on a contrasting surface, such as a kitchen floor. A variety of substances, such as blood, grease, oil, or water will leave contrasting prints. This type of print must be photographed, prior to any other methods being used. An electrostatic dust lifter can also be utilized when the evidence is in dust.
The Plastic Prints: Plastic prints are impressions that occur when the footwear steps into a soft surface, such as deep mud, snow, wet sand, or dirt creating a three-dimensional impression. This type of impression should be photographed and then cast. These types of impressions are three-dimensional because they allow the examiner to see length, width, and depth.
The Latent Prints: Latent prints are the most overlooked print and are generally found on smooth surfaces. They can be developed the same way latent fingerprints are. This type of print needs a variety of powders, chemicals and even forensic light sources to make it visible in order to properly be collected. In most cases these prints should also be photographed prior to any recovery process.

Facebook User
2 months ago
He had time to clean up any footprints he may have caused. Plus after the attack which I believed happened in the hall, he could have removed his shoes to walk through the flat to the kitchen/bedroom.

Lynda J Lewis
2 months ago
Louise: He had time to clean up any footprints he may have caused. Plus after the attack which I believed happened in the hall, he could have removed his shoes to walk through the flat to the kitchen/bedroom.
He had plenty of time to clean the place up but for some reason he chose not to. He also had ample opportunity to remove Joanna's personal belongings from the flat but again he chose not to, although he took the pizza (?) On the one hand we have someone who leaves the place untidy - but ensures that there's no DNA left at the scene (I don't think so). It's almost impossible for someone to ensure there's no DNA left as most forensic evidence consists of minute particles invisible to the naked eye.
He could have removed his shoes of course, but if a struggle took place then there should have been some hair or skin flakes at least - but there wasn't.

Facebook User
2 months ago
I still think he could have caused some disarray in the flat to maybe try and implicate Greg.
If Greg did clean/clear up things he could have inadvertently removed any forensic evidence left behind.
I believe Tabak had Joanna pinned down.

Sarah Perry
2 months ago
Sarah
Plastic prints would be no use in this case as he lived next door so any prints outside would ne useless as evidence.
Latent and visible prints- as i said earlier look how many people stomped through the flat before forensics , Greg , Parents , various police officers all with snowy feet , i doubt if there was anything left to find.

Philip Hollingbery
2 months ago
Do we know whether it was Vincent Tabak himself who chose his defence counsel, or his solicitor Ian Kelcey who made the choice, or some third party who made the choice?

Dyna Victoria
2 months ago
http://www.albionchambers.co.uk/paul-cook
Maybe Paul Cook was the duty solicitor.or maybe albion chambers heard of VTs arrest and hightailed down there knowing that it was going to be a very high profile case..

Dyna Victoria
2 months ago
or may be Albion Chambers had been ready to represent CJ??

Philip Hollingbery
2 months ago
Is William Clegg QC closely related to Deputy Prime Minister Nicholas Clegg, whose mother is Dutch and who speaks Dutch fluently (as well as several other foreign languages)? It might explain why Clegg and Tabak "found" each other.

Philip Hollingbery
2 months ago
The public failure of Vincent Tabak's defence to defend him in a wide variety of particulars - e.g. not to apply for bail, not to seek a writ of habeas corpus, not to reject a confession signed after 8 months in prison, not to deliver a long speech to the media in the absence of the jury about how 7 years working for a Ph.D counted for a great deal more as a positive character reference than a few hours spent viewing kinky porn videos and chatting up sexy girls by telephone - puzzles me. Apparently William Clegg QC has done some good work in his time.
Can it be that he did not want to be seen to defend one of the most hated men in England after his namesake Nicholas Clegg?



Charlotte Eveson
2 months ago
Lol this is the best yet - did he not want to defend one of the most hated men in england? Lol it's his job , he defends vile people every day and trust me He is a defence lawyer !!!
Beyond fantastical


Updated 2 months ago by the author.

Charlotte Eveson
2 months ago
Here is a more simple answer for you Phillip
If he did not want to defend him he could have just said no

Philip Hollingbery
2 months ago
LOL, he would hardly say no to the money - it's nice work if you can get it.

Sue Jeffries
2 months ago
Yes William Clegg is a crap barrister, that's why he got barry george cleared. Why I hear you ask? Because, unlike Tabak, George was innocent!

Charlotte Eveson
2 months ago
I really don't think he is that desperate for the money do you ? Lol
He gains a fantastic rep by freeing Barry George and then risks the lot by trying to stitch up another - I don't think so Phillip
I think his reputation is more important to him at this stage in his career and for the sureity of a continued inome

Charlotte Eveson
2 months ago
The only answer you could come up with was he didn't want to do it ? Say No

2
Sue Jeffries
2 months ago
Philip has no answer of substance to any post or claim he makes so wildly, Charlotte, but that's conspiracy theorists for you. I bet Noel was all in a fluster when he stumbled across Philip on here. I bet he hasn't been that excited since his discovery of Billy Tracey's soiled pants! What a love story LOL

Noel O'Gara
2 months ago
Why do you think Clegg instructed Kelcey to write to me during the trial and warned me that I was risking a lawsuit?
Why did he say that Tabak was discussing me with him during the trial?
Tabak was not told about anything I wrote to him nor was he given his letter.
But Ian Kelcey criminally lied that he discussed my letter with him. I have it in writing from him.
.

Sue Jeffries
2 months ago
I'm so grateful to the police for putting tabak behind bars where he belongs. Deep down Noel, you know your pursuit of' justice' for Tabak is as fruitless and pointless as all your other pursuits.

Philip Hollingbery
Last month
Deep down, Noel knows that only Sue Jeffries and Charlotte Eveson stand in the way of justice for Vincent Tabak. Fortunately for shy, quiet Vincent, Sue J has such an uncontrollable temper that she cannot resist attacking people, so now she (to coin a phrase) is where she deserves to be ;-)
Vincent Tabak's big problem seems to have been a surfeit of lawyers falling over themselves to "defend" him. Not only did he have world-renowned William Clegg QC as his front line of defence, and Kelcey & Hall as his centre forwards, but he also had Paul Cook and Michael Fitton QC of Albion Chambers as his full backs. The goalposts were manned by Crossmans, possibly Patrick Crossman himself, at least for the two days between his arrest and his being charged with murder. With such a great team, how could his defence go so badly astray?

Noel O'Gara
Last month
It is difficult to imagine a man who was never in trouble with the law in his life and had never been held in custody before to appreciate the abilities of the lawyers he met in those jail cells and why he would ask Crossman to resign.
A man in his situation would be grasping at the straws that the lawyer given access to him provided. Only an experienced criminal or businessman in jail would be able to assess if a solicitor was useless or very helpful and a beginner like Tabak would cling to his words.
Tabak was not in a position to choose a solicitor because he was in a cell with no phone or pc at his disposal.
Why Paul Cook resigned and Michael Fitten took over remains to be explained. When Clegg came on board and on whose advice is also unclear at present.
But Clegg was the lawyer who brokered the May confession in the Old Bailey of his pilloried client and set him on his way to a lifetime in jail knowing that he didnt get due process and was denied the presumption of innocence until driven to suicide he agreed to confess to manslaughter in the hope of getting free someday.
Clegg was no great lawyer by any means Philip. He is a disgrace to the legal profession.
.

Philip Hollingbery
Last month
Mr Clegg's idea of a "good character reference" was to tell the jury that his client had no previous convictions. No mention at all was made of Vincent Tabak's doctoral thesis:
http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200910371.pdf
If he had presented each of them with a copy, they would only have had to read the appreciative Preface to realize that there was something not right about this prosecution. The Preface is full of nuanced appreciations of the various different people who contributed to Vincent Tabak's 5 year research project, including many named individual members of his family. The jurors would have seen a completely different side of the man in the dock than the one presented by the silly, humiliating and ultimately disastrous charade through which Clegg schooled him to go.

Noel O'Gara
Last month
All the changing of lawyers in the early stages of this case can only lead one to suspect that the ones who stepped down, Crossmans, Cook and Fitton were unwilling to accede to the prosecution request for cooperation because they oversaw the failure of due process at first hand and rather than speak out against the police, they stepped aside.
Clegg had no problem in treating his client as a killer who was trying to claim he didnt do it and he advised him accordingly and in effect he tricked him into making that disastrous confession to a crime he didnt commit.
Tabak was like a child in his hands. He viewed Clegg as his saviour and was in no position to discuss his predicament with anybody he could call a friend.
From the moment he agreed to make that confession in the hope of getting a manslaughter plea accepted, he was doomed and Clegg knew it.
Clegg has brought disgrace on the profession and shone a light on the dirty deals for murder, that go on behind the scenes.
.

Noel O'Gara
17 days ago
'' Clegg suggested his client had simply said: "I'm going to plead guilty." He had already told his lawyers that he had killed Yeates, Clegg said, adding that Tabak was "a depressed and distressed man unburdening himself".''
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/18/vincent-tabak-no-comment-joanna-yeates
If Tabak was a depressed and distressed man unburdening himself he would have told a full credible story of all the details of the murder he was supposed to have committed. Because he didnt do it, he was unable to give a credible story.
Clegg must have known that was no unburdening and that Tabak was distressed and depressed because he was in such a predicament where everybody was telling him that he did it and they knew he did it because they had his dna on her breast and stomach.
Clegg has proved to be completely out of touch with the reality of Tabak's situation and criminally negligent in his job.
.



This discussion forum was saved on 22nd April 2012 when the forum on facebook was closed down by direction of the authorities. We are not exactly sure which branch threatened the administrator with legal sanctions.
Luckily I had saved the discussion on Word and can reproduce it here.

BACK TO VINCENT TABAK WEB PAGE