- What Vincent Tabak said he would tell the Salvation Army chaplain
What possible interest could you have in the spin-chilling fate that met a young, friendly, highly intelligent Dutch engineer with a Ph.D called Vincent Tabak? Just this –
- He could equally well have been from your country, he could have been your child or my child
- He was head-hunted to a £45,000-a-year job in England with the global architectural consulting firm of Buro Happold in Bath in 2007
- His pretty neighbour Joanna Yeates, whom he did not know at all, even by sight, was murdered just before Christmas 2010 (probably after her boyfriend caught her déshabillé with her secret lover), whereupon the entire British nation and their voracious media demanded that her killer must be found IMMEDIATELY. The police responded by arresting the eccentric-looking landlord, releasing him under house-arrest (after the press had feasted on fabricated anecdotes about him) to keep him silent.
- Owing to his vulnerability as a respectable foreigner without any family in England, Vincent Tabak was chosen by the panic-stricken police as a scapegoat, coerced (by deceit and manipulation plus various forms of torture) to stand trial for a killing he had not carried out, and sentenced to life in prison as the most hated man in England apart from the Prime Minister David Cameron
|His pretty neighbour|
|The house where they lived: 44 Canynge Rd|
|Girlfriend Tanja Morson|
You may possibly know me as an excitable activist, but also as somebody who is good at unravelling complicated technical or judicial problems. My heart, furthermore, is in the right place – and I believe passionately in fairness and justice. You can read my explanation of all the numerous twists and turns in this murder case on this unofficial web site that I have created – but ultimately I have to ask you to trust me, accept that I and my fellow campaigners have done our homework properly, and be assured that I am not trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
|The hidden place where the body was dumped|
|Bristol Magistrates’ Court|
I find it sinister that the conviction for murder of a man with so unlikely a profile has not caused alarm bells to ring at academic high tables throughout Europe. In practice, EU’s rules for the free mobility of labour are used predominantly by the highly educated, so it is a matter of deep concern that corrupt police forces should exploit the vulnerability caused by volatile national sentiment combined with the scapegoat’s lack of family and a well established social network in the jurisdiction in question. I cannot understand why the engineering institutions do not seem to be worried that the lessons learnt by the authorities from this case will be ruthlessly applied to future scapegoats. Murder is a violent crime, yet even well-educated Europeans did not suspect that anything was amiss when they heard the absurd “explanations” for why this mild-mannered law-abiding high achiever suddenly turned into a violent criminal without any motive.
The family and friends
|Park Street, Bristol.|
Joanna Yeates worked in an architects’ office nearby
and went drinking with her colleagues in their local pub
- It is illegal for them to do this, both via the news media, and even via the internet, as long as he has never protested his innocence in open court.
- The family and friends have probably been advised to distance themselves from Vincent to avoid prejudicing their own professional careers and those of their children. His girlfriend will have been urged, in her own interest, to hand over to the authorities any letters he wrote to her and any presents he gave her.
- Both the family and the news media would be charged with libel as long as no defence lawyer is willing to challenge the combined forces of the police, the CPS, the lawyers and the judges who worked for Vincent Tabak’s conviction.
- The court may have imposed an unreported condition of permanent censorship on the media in return for lifting reporting restrictions on the so-called “bad character evidence”. If they have done so, the order would itself be subject to a reporting restriction.
- Vincent Tabak has evidently been told to warn his family that his life in prison will be a lot worse if his family attempts to protest his innocence, beyond asserting that Joanna Yeates’s death was an accident. When he was first arrested, on 20th January 2011, his brother Marcel Tabak and his sister Dr. Cora Tabak told journalists in the Netherlands that they believed panic-stricken police were making him a scapegoat. Avon & Somerset Constabulary were quick to exact retribution for this slur on their authority. After Vincent Tabak’s appearance before the magistrate, he spent a sleepless night of terror cowering in a cell in Bristol prison, whose enraged inmates had watched the TV reports of his brief court appearance and assumed that he was guilty because the magistrate had not asked him how he pleaded. Horrified by this experience, his family hastened to issue a statement saying he was being well treated in prison. The unsubstantiated “bad character evidence” and the obviously false allegations of child pornography published after the trial were designed to demonstrate to the Tabak family the power of reprisal that the police and the lawyers were capable of exercising.
- The (toothless) Independent Police Complaints Commission accepts applications only from persons directly or indirectly affected by the abuse complained of – thus excluding anyone vulnerable to reprisals, i.e., the very persons most likely to have grounds to complain.
- The friends and family must be under colossal pressure from international commercial and academic interests not to expose the methods by which the conviction was rigged.
- Vincent Tabak’s lawyers have warned him not to let his family nor friends talk to the news media about the shortcomings of British justice. They will have told him that this will only inflame national sentiment against him. Both his lawyers and Avon & Somerset Constabulary appear to have learnt a lot from the murder of a British student called Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007. One of the defendants in the Italian case was an American exchange student, Amanda Knox. The media in Britain and the USA followed the case with great interest, and, initially at least, this backfired against her. The prosecutor in Perugia, Giuliani Mignini, carried out judicial reprisals against Amanda Knox’s parents as a result of American media involvement. Both the Italian prosecutor and the Vincent Tabak’s prosecuting QC in Bristol displayed an unfounded obsession with sex, and both discovered that there was no limit to the wild exaggeration of the claims they could make about the part played by sex in the defendants’ alleged actions. Four days before Kercher’s murder, the somewhat dysfunctional young African man who was separately convicted of wielding the knife that killed her had been held in police custody briefly after being apprehended somewhere where he probably shouldn’t have been. The bizarre and cruel campaign to scapegoat outsiders Knox, her sympathetic boyfriend and the African as fellow-conspirators was probably conducted in order to divert attention away from the real reason for Kercher’s staged execution. There are overwhelming indications that she was the victim of a brutal contract killer hired by the family of the unknown influential married Perugian who believed that he had made her pregnant soon after her arrival, and that Monica Napoleoni’s police were instructed to shield the identities of the instigators at all costs. Was it also an unborn baby that led to Joanna Yeates’s killing?
|Long Lartin Prison|
|Joanna Yeates’s parents arriving at the Old Bailey on 5th May 2011|
accompanied by a police officer believed to be DC Emma Davies
(frame captured from Channel 4 news video)
After Vincent Tabak had been tricked by the imposter’s plea of manslaughter, no one would believe his family if they did declare him to be innocent. Because killing is such a powerful taboo, they would themselves be ostracized by everyone around them, including their colleagues at work and their employers. A court of law is an estate of the realm and has enormous authority. Once Vincent Tabak was reported to have admitted killing Joanna Yeates on a video-link to the Old Bailey in London, only a small handful of people in the know (including those of us with no connection to the persons involved in the case – and the real killer!) could have doubted that he did it.
That is why even Peter the Apostle denied Jesus before the crucifixion and was not present at His death. There is indeed a biblical element to this evil destruction of such an essentially good and brilliant man because of the death of a woman whose body was allegedly found on Christmas day.
The only exception is 70 year old Mrs. Tabak. Everyone will understand a mother’s right to go on believing in her son’s innocence. If she lived in England and could speak English, and her son were English, she would certainly be shouting it from the rooftops to anyone who would listen. But no one in England is going to believe the mother of a Dutch murderer if she tries to contradict what her own son admitted in an English court of law – especially if the media are subject to reporting restrictions imposed by the court.
That is why it is a terrible thing when a court of law misuses its authority to punish a man for a murder he did not commit – especially if the judge himself knows it. Vincent Tabak’s family said just after his trial that he is afraid of being beaten up by other prisoners – but they cannot speak publicly of “torture”, because he will have been told: “Make sure you say that you were properly treated” (to quote Gareth Peirce).