A miscarriage of justice

On 28th October 2011, at Bristol Crown Court, Dr. Vincent Tabak was found guilty of murdering landscape architect Joanna Yeates on 17th December 2010 and sentenced to life in prison, with a minimum tariff of 20 years. The evidence proving that he was made the scapegoat in a cruel and deliberate miscarriage of justice to protect the real killer is summarized point-by-point in “Guilty until proven Innocent”. The British and international news media and even the Leveson Inquiry have been muzzled to prevent them from exposing this evil scandal.

The Basil Blake solution

The killer planted the body on
Basil Blake’s hearthrug. Blake’s
solution to the dilemma in which
he found himself was to plant the
body in Colonel Bantry’s library
None of the forensic evidence produced in court linked Vincent Tabak to the actual killing of Joanna Yeates – only to the dumping of her body. All the evidence can be shown conclusively to have been faked, apart from the spots of blood allegedly found in the boot of his girlfriend's Renault Megane. However, the forensic scientist who examined the boot of the car has never been named, nor did he or she testify in person. Despite the shortcomings of this circumstantial evidence linking Vincent Tabak to the dumping of Joanna Yeates’s body, much was made of it in the media before and during his trial. It is very unlikely that he ever actually went anywhere near Joanna Yeates’s body.

However, had William Clegg QC not connived with the prison chaplain to create a fake confession, nor accepted an unsound plead of manslaughter entered by an imposter, defence counsel could certainly have pointed out in Court that the evidence of his having dumped the body in no way demonstrated that he was necessarily also the killer. He could have dumped the body owing to a genuine fear of incrimination, having found the body in the boot of the Renault Megane, after it had been deposited there by the actual killer, with the intent to incriminate the owner of the car.

Joanna Yeates
A very similar dilemma confronted the character of Basil Blake in the well known Agatha Christie story “The Body in the Library”. Basil Blake returns to his house from a party late at night to find the body of an unknown blonde lying on his hearthrug. He drags the body and the hearthrug out to his car, drives round to the neighbouring stately home of Colonel Bantry, and deposits the body in the neighbour’s library, where it is found by the maid the following day. The next day Blake burns his hearthrug.


http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.dk/2012/01/detective-constable.html
On no account should you telephone the police.
The boot of the Renault Megane registered to
Vincent Tabak’s girlfriend
The actual history of Vincent Tabak’s conviction contains very clear lessons to everyone on how to deal with the body of a murder victim. Regardless of whether you yourself are a killer, or just an innocent person who finds the body in the boot of your car, you should definitely not drive out to a quarry with it and dump it by the roadside. Instead, you should test the boot of each of the cars parked nearby until you find one that is unlocked, and deposit the body in it, thereby ensuring that its owner will be convicted of the murder instead of you. On no account should you telephone the police, as they will be totally indifferent as to whether you had a motive or not, and indifferent to your previous character and record, but will charge you with murder anyway, on the basis that you had means and opportunity and were without an alibi.

Whoever the real killer of Joanna Yeates was, he would have had the opportunity to smear samples of her blood from his clothes inside the boots of other cars parked at 44 Canynge Road, especially those he found unlocked. The fact that Vincent Tabak, whom the police depicted as so cool and calculating, did not do this suggests that he was not the real killer.

Vincent Tabak in the Asda supermarket
at Bedminster. The time display at the lower
left-hand corner of the video has been blurred out.
Tabak was accused of visiting the Asda supermarket, with Joanna's body in the boot of his car. In the CCTV of him doing his shopping, his demeanour looks perfectly normal. A first-time murderer would have looked at best edgy, at worst terrified. Some serial killers might go around with a body in a car, but not Vincent Tabak.

Nearly five weeks passed between the night Joanna disappeared and the arrest of Vincent Tabak. Had he been the real killer, he would have had ample opportunity to clean the boot, have it professionally cleaned, or contaminate it with organic waste and then clean it up himself with an enzyme cleaning agent, so that any minute traces of Joanna’s DNA would be completely overwhelmed.

Why would he tell the chaplain that he had been advised to plead guilty of the manslaughter of Joanna, when he could have pleaded the Basil Blake solution instead? Why did his defence team allow an unsound plea guilty of manslaughter entered by an actor, instead of the Basil Blake solution? This is one of the indicators that they were cosying up to the prosecution instead of acting for their client.

Vincent Tabak could have alleged that he began to heave her body over the wall, but then realized that Basil Blake would have left her by the roadside, to be discovered next day, sparing her parents a week’s uncertainty. When a heavy fall of snow subsequently prevented the body from being found, he could have claimed that he believed her parents would not be any happier knowing she were dead anyway.

No one who was taken in by the allegations by the police and the prosecution that it was watching adult pornographic videos that inspired Vincent Tabak to strangle his neighbour – or the fantastic suggestion that Vincent Tabak returned to take Joanna Yeates’s sock as a trophy but then discarded it – should pour scorn on a possible defence strategy inspired by Agatha Christie – a strategy a great deal more plausible than the defence’s actual strategy of the “kiss that went wrong” that was so firmly rejected by the jury. DCI Phil Jones planted the trophy theory in the public consciousness to distract them from speculating that Joanna might have been surprised by her boyfriend in the company of a mystery lover, and had managed to get only one sock on before she was killed out of jealousy – perhaps because she told them she was pregnant.

The alleged discovery of Joanna’s body by a young couple walking their labrador dog on Christmas morning a week after her disappearance is beset with difficulties that are very hard to explain away. What were the four pumping tenders, 1.47 tonne crane and fuel bowser doing in Longwood Lane all Christmas afternoon? The unchallenged prosecution evidence presented in court supported the scenario that the body had lain there for at least several days, yet the snow was not deep enough to have covered it. Furthermore any passing dog or fox would have investigated the body with great interest, yet even the couple’s labrador did not detect the body. The foetal position in which the body lay is also difficult to explain. All of these difficulties are consistent with the body’s having been deposited somewhere far less accessible in the neighbourhood of Longwood Lane, by someone who was possibly not the killer, and who had possibly been placed in a compromising position by its discovery. This person decided to keep quiet for a day or two before tipping off the police, and the prosecution used the situation to mislead the court.

Where did the blood come from on Joanna Yeates’s hair? How did she get into a foetal position? If she was put into a bag, then she had to come out of the bag. If she were dumped immediately, there would be no rigor mortis. If she were in a bag until rigor mortis set in, then she would have had to be taken out of the bag in such a state. That would have been difficult. In that case, why not leave her in the bag, to slow down discovery? It makes no sense.