GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #14

[whiterum]

I only come back here at weekends for now with all the upset,” he explained. “I wasn’t here on the night she went missing, I was away and I don’t know anyone who saw or heard anything.
“It’s very upsetting that something like this has happened. This is a nice, safe, friendly area

If no-one was sure what night/day she went missing, then how would he have known he wasn't there that night. Because he was the bloody killer and he knew exactly what night she went missing.

"I don't know anyone who saw or heard anything", thought it was a job well done then, how wrong he was !!

 

[bees]

If no-one was sure what night/day she went missing, then how would he have known he wasn't there that night. Because he was the bloody killer and he knew exactly what night she went missing.

"I don't know anyone who saw or heard anything", thought it was a job well done then, how wrong he was !!

Maybe he was trying to imply that she went missing on the Sunday night (when she was discovered to be missing), which would implicate the boyfriend.

Alternatively, he meant the Friday night (when she was last seen/heard from) and he left the flat that night and was away the rest of the weekend. He might have done that so that he had an alibi.

Either way, now that he's confessed to killing her, we know he told the reporter(s) a pack of lies to cover his real actions, the same as he told everyone else.

I'm still amazed he could seem "normal" after the event. How could anyone be "normal" after they'd killed someone and dumped their body? He must either be a bloody good actor or have no remorse for destroying that young woman's life.

 

[Deckard]

I'm still amazed he could seem "normal" after the event. How could anyone be "normal" after they'd killed someone and dumped their body? He must either be a bloody good actor or have no remorse for destroying that young woman's life.

I wonder what alibi he offered the police in the early period of the investigation which seemingly got him off the hook? If TM had corroborated(sp?!) his initial alibi surely she would have been charged with perverting the course of justice, which she hasn't.

Although VT wouldn't have had to go through the grieving relative/bf charade you often see on taped press releases he still must have been one cool cucumber to live the lie under the weight of media attention this case received.

 

[veggiefan]

Either way, now that he's confessed to killing her, we know he told the reporter(s) a pack of lies to cover his real actions, the same as he told everyone else.

What are these lies, though? All he said was a very vague statement about being "away" when JY "went missing", and general comments about it all being very upsetting and a blight on the neighbourhood.

I don't think any of that represents a "pack of lies", unless you are referring to some other interview that I've forgotten about.

 

[veggiefan]

I wonder what alibi he offered the police in the early period of the investigation which seemingly got him off the hook? If TM had corroborated(sp?!) his initial alibi surely she would have been charged with perverting the course of justice, which she hasn't.

I think VT may well have asked TM to provide an alibi, and also (although it has been denied) that she was the sobbing female whose phone call led to his arrest. It seems the most plausible scenario and it seems suspicious that she has never once said anything in his support.

If that's true, she may well be charged with attempting to pervert the cause of justice. Perhaps it won't be done until after VT's trial has shown that she did indeed lie to protect him. This is all supposition but, if true, I'd guess that any case against TM would be postponed until after VT's case, for fear of evidence prejudicing the latter.

 

[bees]

What are these lies, though? All he said was a very vague statement about being "away" when JY "went missing", and general comments about it all being very upsetting and a blight on the neighbourhood.

I don't think any of that represents a "pack of lies", unless you are referring to some other interview that I've forgotten about.

This is allegedly what he said:

Before his arrest, Mr Tabak had told a reporter: “I wasn’t here on the night she [Miss Yeates] went missing, I was away and I don’t know anyone who saw or heard anything. I only come back here at weekends with all the upset.
“The feeling around here is not a nice one now, it is as if the areas has been blighted by what’s happened.
“We are all very sad about it, and although I didn’t know Miss Yeates, I am deeply saddened by what happened.”

Now that he's admitted to killing her, the above is a pack of lies IMO, clearly intended to give the impression that he had nothing whatsoever to do with JY's death.

He most likely gave his girlfriend a false account of what he did while she was away on the Friday night.

He must have lied to the police about his movements on the Friday night when they initially interviewed him.

He must have lied to his family:

Tabak's brother Marcel said: "We were all together in a rented cottage. It had snowed and Vincent summoned the adults without the children. He said what he knew about what had happened to his neighbour - the fact that following her murder everything was being examined, even his apartment."

He didn't tell them what he knew about the murder at all - he concealed what he knew, which is therefore telling his family a pack of lies IMO in order to convince them of his innocence.

I agree that it might not come up in court but it surely will if any of the above are called to speak about it, won't it?

 

[whiterum]

I wonder what alibi he offered the police in the early period of the investigation which seemingly got him off the hook? If TM had corroborated(sp?!) his initial alibi surely she would have been charged with perverting the course of justice, which she hasn't.

Although VT wouldn't have had to go through the grieving relative/bf charade you often see on taped press releases he still must have been one cool cucumber to live the lie under the weight of media attention this case received.

During the time that TM was at a party on the Friday night, she could not have known what he was up to but she could have provided one for the Saturday and Sunday.

GR had an alibi for Friday and Saturday but none for Sunday when he arrived home. As Bee's suggested, he could have tried to make an implication regarding the Sunday, as he may have been away with TM, the day/night GR came home and eventually reported Jo missing.

 

[Deckard]

I think VT may well have asked TM to provide an alibi, and also (although it has been denied) that she was the sobbing female whose phone call led to his arrest. It seems the most plausible scenario and it seems suspicious that she has never once said anything in his support.

If that's true, she may well be charged with attempting to pervert the cause of justice. Perhaps it won't be done until after VT's trial has shown that she did indeed lie to protect him. This is all supposition but, if true, I'd guess that any case against TM would be postponed until after VT's case, for fear of evidence prejudicing the latter.

If this were true perhaps the police have struck some kind of deal with TM to gain a conviction. It might explain why they feel they can push for murder. In this scenario presumably only VT and TM would know the truth of what actually happened.

CJ might have to strike another one off his Christmas list having spent it in the slammer last year!

 

[whiterum]

I'm sure it was a great shock on Christmas Day for TM, possibly GM, and her parents, when they heard the news that missing Jo was found dead in Longwood Lane. You would expect this would have been the topic of discussion and I wonder what was being said by the killer in their home.

Whatever it was 'the lovely Vincent' who could not be involved, must have been lying through his teeth. As Deckard said, the man must be as 'cool as a cucumber '.

 

[veggiefan]

Now that he's admitted to killing her, the above is a pack of lies IMO.

Out of the statements you quote, most are not lies at all. I'm sure he was right in saying things such as "The feeling around here is not a nice one", "it is as if the areas has been blighted by what’s happened" and "I only come back here at weekends with all the upset".

The only possible lie is his claim that he "was away on the night she went missing". But any competent lawyer would point out that he was referring to the night she was reported as missing, when he might well have been away.

He may have lied to the police at his initial interview, but we don't know what they are asked him, so this is all supposition.

I agree that it might not come up in court but it surely will if any of the above are called to speak about it, won't it?

His lawyer will point out that not saying something (e.g. to his family) is not the same as lying. To paint his character as that of an habitual liar, it will be necessary to find evidence of a number of deliberate untruths (and that can be verified as untrue) in order to protect himself. The court won't accept suppositions and assumptions.

My own view is that he was very clever in what he said in order to avoid being branded a liar if he should get caught.

 

[veggiefan]

I'm sure it was a great shock on Christmas Day for TM, possibly GM, and her parents, when they heard the news that missing Jo was found dead in Longwood Lane. You would expect this would have been the topic of discussion and I wonder what was being said by the killer in their home.

Whatever it was 'the lovely Vincent' who could not be involved, must have been lying through his teeth. As Deckard said, the man must be as 'cool as a cucumber '.

Why do you say he "must have been lying through his teeth" when you have already indicated that you don't know what he said in the family home?

Sorry, but that is exactly what will be asked in court if a point like this came up. It could be that VT lied if his mum asked him the direct question "did you kill her?" But what mum would ask that? It's much more likely that the discussion revolved around how awful it all is, is it safe to live in Bristol, will you go back, and so on. All topics that VT could easily discuss without telling a lie and very characteristic of a person who is "as cool as a cucumber".

 

[veggiefan]

If this were true perhaps the police have struck some kind of deal with TM to gain a conviction. It might explain why they feel they can push for murder.

That's certainly a possibility I hadn't considered. If the sobbing woman really was TM, she may have been in tears partly through realising that she was potentially in trouble by not coming forward earlier.

In this scenario presumably only VT and TM would know the truth of what actually happened.

Not even TM may have known the full truth. It's not impossible that VT persuaded her to provide an alibi because he told her that if he couldn't prove his whereabouts on the night in question he was in danger of being blamed for a murder which (so he told TM) must have been committed by a burglar.

 

[Cherwell]

Not even TM may have known the full truth. It's not impossible that VT persuaded her to provide an alibi because he told her that if he couldn't prove his whereabouts on the night in question he was in danger of being blamed for a murder which (so he told TM) must have been committed by a burglar.

If it's true that she was at an office party on the Friday night, then she won't have been in a position to give him a full alibi, as plenty of people would have seen her there.

 

[notsure]

Why do you say he "must have been lying through his teeth" when you have already indicated that you don't know what he said in the family home?

Sorry, but that is exactly what will be asked in court if a point like this came up. It could be that VT lied if his mum asked him the direct question "did you kill her?" But what mum would ask that? It's much more likely that the discussion revolved around how awful it all is, is it safe to live in Bristol, will you go back, and so on. All topics that VT could easily discuss without telling a lie and very characteristic of a person who is "as cool as a cucumber".

But not telling the truth in that situation would surely be classed as a series of lies of omission.

 

[badhorsie]

Regarding CJ, I think it’s a crime in itself for an innocent, elderly man with absolutely nothing criminal in his history, to have suffered all that unfounded accusation and humiliation.

I blame the police as well as the media, when they revealed the arrested suspect was aged 65, no name was needed it was like a red flag to a bull. Also his cars hoisted in full view of the media, arrested on suspicion of murder because of something he thought he saw, on a dark night. They released him in a few days, because they could find nothing at all against him according to a police source at the time.

Yet the real culprit was interviewed early in the inquiry and was ruled out. Wasn’t his alibi checked thoroughly, he claimed later he was away at the time but neighbours saw him come home sometime after Gregg left. So it would have been known from the start that he was in the building the night of the murder, only a few yards away from Jo.

So CJ should sue them all, police, media, etc for they have destroyed what years he has left, causing him to uproot and put his very home up for sale.

It’s enough to give the man an early heart attack, the prolonged ordeal will have probably taken years of his life.

This post is worth more than a click on the thanks button.
I would like to see CJ get a front page apology à la Mccanns

 

[veggiefan]

If it's true that she was at an office party on the Friday night, then she won't have been in a position to give him a full alibi, as plenty of people would have seen her there.

True, but I think VT must have had some sort of alibi when the police first questioned him. However, I guess that if a lack of alibi was the only evidence against him at that point, it wouldn't have been enough to bring him in for questioning.

 

[Chester]

He's been threatening to sue them for months has he actually started proceedings yet?

This is from April

"Mr Christopher Jefferies has today given notice of libel and privacy claims against a large number of national and local newspapers in relation to articles published by them in December 2010 and January 2011.

The newspapers include The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Star among others. Mr Jefferies will be seeking vindication of his reputation for the terrible treatment he received. Mr Jefferies will not be making any statement about these claims until their conclusion, which he hopes will be in the very near future.

Simons Muirhead & Burton partner, Louis Charalambous, who also represented Robert Murat, leads the team representing Mr Jefferies in these libel and privacy claims."

Then following the recent news that The Sun & The Mirror newspapers are to be prosecuted for contempt, CJ's lawyers issued this statement:

"Mr Jefferies' solicitors, London-based Stokoe Partnership, said in a statement they were acting for him "in relation to a claim for false imprisonment, trespass and breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 against the Avon and Somerset Constabulary".

The statement added: "Mr Jefferies has given notice of a claim to the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary in relation to his arrest on 30th December 2010 and his subsequent detention in police custody."

 

[veggiefan]

But not telling the truth in that situation would surely be classed as a series of lies of omission.

No. There is no obligation on a criminal to tell his family what he has been up to. In fact, I doubt that many do, since it is potentially a sure way of being caught.

It's a different matter if VT agrees to give testimony in his own trial. If he does, he will have to swear to tell the "whole truth" and any omissions in that testimony could be held against him.

 

[whiterum]

Why do you say he "must have been lying through his teeth" when you have already indicated that you don't know what he said in the family home?.

I expect it would be safe to assume that he would have been asked a few questions and most likely repeated the lies he told the reporter among others.

“I don’t know of anyone who saw or heard anything” what about himself he being the perpetrator was the sole person who saw and heard everything, even Jo’s last breath.

“ I wasn’t there, I was away the night she went missing”. He obviously was there the night she went missing, whether or not he made it appear that he was referring to another night, does not make it anything less than a lie. The actual night she went missing, he killed her removed her body from her home and dumped her in Longwood Lane.

He did not need to say anything, he could have said “no comment” like many others, but in the words of the reporter ” he was keen to talk”

 

[whiterum]

I would like to see CJ get a front page apology à la Mccanns

Totally agree!