Another strangulation 3 days before Joanna Yeates

Noel O'Gara
Yesterday
Read this report and compare the evidence with the case of Vincent Tabak.

http://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/local-news/army_cadet_told_police_death_of_colne_girlfriend_was_sex_game_gone_wrong_1_3627731


There are some interesting aspects, mainly the certainty that the man accused is her killer. Her sister has a post on the wall.

Like this post to subscribe to the topic.
Delete
Do you want to delete this post?Yes | No

1
Sue Jeffries
Yesterday
Oh here we go? So even there was no evidence Jo had sex that night you are now proposing the idea this was a sex game gone wrong? No doubt Greg is the cuplrit??? Somehow he managed to have sex with Jo without dna picking this up, and while indulging in a strangling sex game ( no evidence Greg was into this but hey who needs evidence when we can just speculate absolute bullshit) he killed her, then upped sticks to Sheffield for his alibi and the rest is history.

Then again we have a neighbour next door with no alibi, whose dna was found on Jo even though he didnt even know her, who admitted he killed her and was found to be into strangling porn. Again exercising common sense tells me the latter scenario is the correct explanation and Tabak is her killer.

Philip Hollingbery
Yesterday
@Sue, "... you are now proposing the idea this was a sex game gone wrong?"

If Daniel Lancaster's testimony is to be believed at all, then the strangulation of poor Anna Banks took place during sex, and his victim actually enjoyed being half strangled. The pathologist in the Tabak trial, by contrast, seems to be very sure that no sex had taken place, and that Ms Yeates was strangled.

@Noel, "There are some interesting aspects..."
I can imagine what some posters would have written about us if you or I had suggested a scenario like this appalling real-life case. Is it possible that Tabak's defence knew about the details of Anna Banks's death, and used it as a basis to develop his strangulation fetish tactic?

The judge, perversely, rejected the (unfounded) strangulation fetish argument as evidence for the jury, but removed restrictions on publication, well knowing that this explanation would be believed by the public as the perverse reason for Ms Yeates's death. The only thing said in court on the subject was Tabak's denial that he got any kick out of strangling Ms Yeates, but it has emerged that nobody believes this. In that case, why did neither Mr Lickley nor Mr Clegg call Tanja Morson as a witness to testify to her boyfriend's sexual preferences? It would be an obvious thing to have done. Why have the journalists not asked themselves the same question, given the lack of any other convincing explanation for Tabak's actions? This is absolutely crucial, because it was the explanation of why he did it that the jury needed to have in order to decide whether it was manslaughter or murder.

We keep on hearing that "the only person who knows what really happened is Tabak", but this is not true. His girlfriend, though absent at a party during the killing, would be expected to be able to answer all kinds of questions, yet her testimony was not sought by either side.

Lynda J Lewis
Yesterday
Philip: It was quite odd that Tanja wasn't called as a witness for either side. But can the defence make someone appear as a defence witness if they don't want to I wonder? In my case (the ex boyfriend's trial) I was subpoenaed as a prosecution witness (although I had to attend the trial I wasn't actually needed on the day), but I'm not sure that the defence can subpoena someone in the same way the prosecution can. It could well be that she was reluctant to have any part in the trial and refused to be a witness (for the defence).

Philip Hollingbery
Yesterday
@Lynda, I have no expert knowledge about this, but it would seem likely that the defence could always apply to the judge for a subpoena if he can show that a witness's absence would weaken his case. In my opinion Tanja's absence from the witness box is itself strong evidence that this was a "show" trial. Whatever your own or anyone else's feelings about "one-sentence-fits-all" (which however I'm sorry I misinterpreted), what this trial was really about was the reason why he killed her. Was it sex-related, as everyone seems to think, or not? How could the jury decide between murder and manslaughter if they were not given the evidence about the sexual aspect? Surely it is obvious that Tanja's evidence about her boyfriend's sexuality would be worth far more than the hugely over-valued and withheld evidence of the computer porn?

Noel O'Gara
Yesterday
Philip, there is no doubt that the Tabak case was a show trial.

You can bet your bottom dollar that William Clegg put the full facts and press reports of the Anna Banks verdict before Tabak showing him that her killer actually got 4 years. That means he only has one more year to serve in jail.
His confession was given just a few weeks after that sentencing.

That would be a powerful incentive for Tabak to cooperate. The man caught in the trap could plead to manslaughter as we saw him play it out or hold out and risk life in jail with all that dna and blood and porn and decomposition etc etc.
He was very likely assured that the plea would be accepted. As it happened they reneged on the deal because it was always going to be a show trial.

Perhaps it shows you the wheeling and dealing for murder resolution.
That low life who killed Anna was most likely spinning lies to save his own bacon. It is a common defence of killers to blame the dead victim as much as possible. He wasnt fooling the police but he did pull the wool over the jury's eyes.
Dead men or women tell no tales. The sexual pleasure of being choked to death is all in the minds of murderers who use it to diminish their share of blame.
So he will be out a free man at the end of 2012 or perhaps earlier and that was the carrot put to Tabak.
There are many similarities to both cases.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/9185783.Colne_man_jailed_for_four_years_for_manslaughter_of_girlfriend/
Delete
Do you want to delete this post?Yes | No

Lynda J Lewis
Yesterday
That's unbelievable that 2 people - Joanna and Anna, met the same fate, yet one is in prison for 20+ years while the other will be free next year. There's something very wrong there. It does seem that a manslaughter verdict is a lot more likely when the perpetrator is well known to the victim for some reason.

Philip Hollingbery
Yesterday
@Lynda, It's more likely to be because Anna Banks's killer was a sex-obsessed working class lad diagnosed as being of low intelligence. If he'd had a Ph.D who had been a virgin until he was 29, he'd have got a 20 year sentence on the grounds that he ought to have known better
;-)

1
Lynda J Lewis
Yesterday
I agree Philip. It's so wrong that there's such a huge difference in the sentences in these two cases where the end result has been exactly the same - the young women victims are dead.

Noel O'Gara
Yesterday
What I really wanted to draw to your attention was that there was no doubt that Anna's killer was the man in the dock. Despite his denials of murder, all the circumstances and evidence clearly proved that he was the killer and he just couldnt hide the crime.
I doubt if Tabak ever saw a woman turn colour or cough up blood while he was choking her.

In Joanna Yeates case the evidence that convicted Tabak was his confession to manslaughter hoping that he would get out of that terrible trap that he found himself in.
The whole scene of crime and timing is threadbare and lacks any semblance of credibility.
Tabak's confession, like Sutcliffe's is the only evidence that really convicted him. It is only evidence of a stitch up.
Delete
Do you want to delete this post?Yes | No

1
Sue Jeffries
Yesterday
I agree Philip. It's so wrong that there's such a huge difference in the sentences in these two cases where the end result has been exactly the same - the young women victims are dead.

Its also so wrong how people kick up such a stink about a dutch man with a phd being innocent ( even with no evidence to suggest this) ,when by your own admission you would probably readily accept the guilt of your average British bum.

Noel O'Gara
9 hours ago
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 shown 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.
Delete
Do you want to delete this post?Yes | No

Diane Shepherd
8 hours ago
No matter how many times you say it noel, it will never make it true.

2
Sue Jeffries
4 hours ago
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 shown the sentencing of Anna Banks killer he agreed to confess to manslaughter, on Clegg's advice.

In your bloody opinion Noel!!!! Because you dont know any of that is bloody true and you are getting on my wick stating this all as fact when it is not!

1
Lynne Kindon
An hour ago
Noel you said earlier that you don't read all the posts....dam right you don't. You just make it up as you go along..you just let your vivid imagination run away with you.

Noel O'Gara
A few seconds ago
the lynch mob is alive and well and this forum proves it.
How is it that the people who believed that Tabak was guilty from the moment of his arrest have such resistance to debating anything that might undermine their faith in their own convictions?

You cannot bear to think about the Anna Banks case and the parallels with the murder of Joanna Yeates.

Anna was strangled in her flat by her boyfriend just three days before Jo was strangled in her flat by her killer.
The suspect was arrested and charged with murder but was convicted of manslaughter by a jury because he blamed the victim. He got 2 years in jail.

Tabak, an innocent man who was blamed for Jo's murder confessed to manslaughter just a few weeks after he was told about Anna's case and days before his own trial was to commence.
He confessed because he was convinced that he would get life if he didnt cooperate.

How is it that you cant discuss the similarities of Jo's case with Anna's?

 

BACK TO VINCENT TABAK WEBPAGE