“You have been convicted of the murder of Joanna Yeates on sound and substantial evidence. In my view you are very dangerous. In my opinion you are thoroughly deceitful, dishonest and manipulative”
– Mr. Justice Field, 28th October 2011
|Mr. Justice Field|
– the judge
|Joanna Yeates – murdered|
|Nigel Lickley QC|
Counsel for the
|William Clegg QC|
Counsel for the Defence
|Head of the Complex Casework Unit|
at the CPS, Ann Reddrop, outside
Bristol Crown Court after the verdict
|Ann Reddrop, DCI Phil Jones and DI Joseph Goff, at a press conference held after the trial,|
probably on 1st November 2011
DCI Jones added: ”During the investigation we worked closely with Law Enforcement Agencies in the USA establishing Vincent Tabak’s movements during his 5 week stay. The trial judge, Mr Justice Field, ruled as inadmissible the evidence of Vincent Tabak’s contact and links to escorts during this visit. Despite this ruling and having listened to all the admissible evidence in this case, the jury found Vincent Tabak guilty of the murder of Joanna Yeates.”
... Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones... said: “During the examination of Vincent Tabak’s computer, other material was found. We have referred this matter to the Crown Prosecution Service for initial guidance.”
Ann Reddrop, head of the CPS South West Complex Casework Unit, added: “The CPS has been asked for initial guidance about other material.”
– SWNS, 1st November 2011.
Why hasn’t Vincent Tabak appealed?
|Joanna’s parents Teresa & David Yeates|
|Stitched up, drugged...|
Yet when Vincent Tabak was brought back to Bristol, 2½ years later, to stand trial on a totally implausible charge of having possessed illegal images of child abuse at the time when he was first arrested, he had not sacked his defence lawyers. On the contrary, he retained the same firm of solicitors and the same barristers’ chambers to represent him. His satisfaction with them can be explained only by deducing that he had undertaken to stand trial for killing Joanna in return for a secret amnesty and a new identity. This may also account for his absence of emotion on hearing the jury’s verdict.
|DCI Phil Jones, leader of the murder investigation|
|The entrance to Joanna’s flat|
False: Wikipedia reports that Joanna was killed inside her flat. This proposition was not actually tested in court, because it was the starting point for the trial. No blood nor any DNA from the suspect was found in the flat, yet Joanna bled a good deal when she was strangled. However, the only evidence supporting it was the presence in the flat of her keys, purse, mobile phone, bags, outdoor clothing etc., and objects out of place testified by her boyfriend on his return. Her things could have been planted there after she had been killed elsewhere, however, but the nature of the items that were missing, namely the pizza and one sock, makes it most likely that her boyfriend caught her in bed with a lover, a struggle prevented her from finishing dressing, she fled the flat clutching the one sock, and was killed in the car where she took refuge.
|Fire engines in Longwood Lane, 25th December 2010|
False: Wikipedia reports that Joanna’s body was found beside Longwood Lane itself, and includes the co-ordinates of the spot. However, the use of four pumping fire tenders, one of them equipped with a 1.47 tonne crane having a 5 metre reach, a safety boat, and ancillary appliances, working all afternoon to recover the body, proves that the public and the jury were misled, and that the body was actually dumped in a place with significant access difficulties.
False: Wikipedia reports that suspicion of murder was the reason why Christopher Jefferies was arrested, and also that he was kept on police bail for six weeks after Vincent Tabak had been charged. It omits to mention his 2nd witness statement, volunteering evidence that he was one of the last to see Joanna alive, it omits to mention that this was never heard by the jury and that it has it never been made public in ungarbled form. The unmistakable inference is that silencing the landlord and perverting the course of justice was the police’s real motive for his drastic arrest.
False: Wikipedia reports tests allegedly proving that Joanna had not eaten the pizza she had purchased on her way home. The unattributed police source claiming this was probably lying, she probably did eat the pizza, and the police probably knew that she had done so. Wikipedia omits to mention that the Scottish gastroenterologist who testified in court, Dr Jennifer Miller, managed to do so without actually revealing whether her analysis of the stomach contents had revealed anything at all.
False: Wikipedia reports that Vincent Tabak’s arrest followed a tip from an anonymous female caller. This is unsubstantiated hearsay that conflicts with the evidence presented in court by the officers who were responsible for investigating and arresting Tabak. None of these mentioned an anonymous tip in their testimony.
|Dr Jennifer Miller|
|Vincent Tabak’s girlfriend|
Tanja Morson. She had not
left him, nor did she tip off
the police anonymously
|Prison chaplain Peter Brotherton.|
The jury was not told that he was
actually a Supervising Officer
from Whitemoor Prison
|Long Lartin prison|
|Fibres found on Joanna’s body|
suggested contact with
Vincent Tabak’s coat and car
False: Wikipedia reports that Tabak tried to implicate his landlord, but the landlord was never called into court to confirm or refute the incriminating allegations that the police alleged the defendant had made.
|The detective sent to Holland|
DC Karen Thomas
– said to be a
police IT expert
prostitutes by phone. These lies are based on unsubstantiated hearsay from anonymous police sources, and unsubstantiated statements made by Prosecuting Counsel enjoying court immunity.
|... women being controlled by|
men, bound and gagged,
held by the neck...
illegal images of child abuse were found on Tabak’s computers. Not only is this based on unsubstantiated hearsay from an anonymous source, but it is also obviously and self-evidently untrue, and was furthermore intended to incite prison inmates to carry out vigilante attacks on Tabak. The existence of this charge has also been used in the succeeding years to suppress any subsequent press reporting about Vincent Tabak except what is based on the trial proceedings.
The following are not lies, but they show how the Wikipedia article is seriously misleading:
|The Old Bailey|
Wikipedia fails to report that the plea hearing was moved at 24 hours notice 100 miles from Bristol to the Old Bailey, without any explanation being given, nor that no one who knew Tabak even slightly was in court at any of the preliminary hearings. The inference is that the reason for the move was to use an actor to enter a manslaughter plea by video-link (instead of a Not Guilty plea that the defendant would have intended) and groom the news media to report the “bad character evidence”.
|A “show” trial|
|Lord Justice Leveson|
|“A man of good character”|