Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by Salem, May 15, 2011.
Please continue here.
I keep thinking that VT is going to have a hell of a job convincing the court that he's telling the truth considering the massive amount of lies he told after the event.
He's clearly lied to his girlfriend and her family. Then he lied to his own family. Then he lied to the police. How is a jury supposed to accept anything he says as true?
30 December - Chris Jefferies arrested
01 January - Chris Jefferies released from custody
20 January - Vincent Tabak arrested
04 March - Chris Jefferies released from police bail
This timeline illustrates the mystery of CJ's "involvement".
I am not familiar with the legal process in the UK and the issue of "Police Bail". Of course, there is Bail in the US but it is applied only after someone is formally charged (the exact process varies from state to state). This whole issue of having charges filed may be a technicality but there must be some legal standards restricting when a Police Bail may be impose.
What I'm getting at is wouldn't there have to have been something establishing "probable cause”; something stronger than just, say, having keys to JY's flat (he was her LL) and not having a rock solid alibi? Three weeks after CJ Posted bail, VT was arrested. Obviously there was more to the investigation than simply tidying up the loose ends of the case against CJ. They were clearly pursuing another suspect.
Then, after the arrest of VT, CJ remained on bail another 6 weeks and it was dropped without apology or vindication as I recall. It appears CJ was very much under the shadow of suspicion during the entire period. But Why?
Now I might be totally off on the UK legal process. It could be that SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) when a crime has been committed is to round up the "usual Suspects" and have them post police bail, while they sort out the situation. Perhaps someone would inform me if this is the case. Otherwise I will assume Police Bail is for serious suspects only, making CJ a Serious Suspect.
It is safe to assume at this point that CJ did not kill JY and it seems highly improbably that the otherwise well respected 66 year old retired school teacher would deliberately assist someone else with a murder or the cover-up of that murder. It's possible I suppose but very unlikely.
Had CJ been untruthful during the initial investigation, it could explain the initial arrest. Lying to the police during a murder investigation is a VERY BAD Idea. Once VT was arrested, I would think any of CJ "untruthfulness" would be pretty much irrelevant unless it provided cover for VT.
I am wondering if CJ told some sort of lie to the police that was only intended to keep a tenant of his, he believed to be totally innocent, from becoming embroiled in a murder investigation. Something involving one of CJ's vehicles comes to mind. It wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened.
It would need those family members to testify against him by confirming what he actually told them. Otherwise it is just supposition or hearsay, and won't be admissable in court.
If they don't testify in court what he said, the jury will still assume he lied to everyone after the event. The alternative is to think that they knew the truth and were involved in a cover-up. That's unlikely given the statements made by the Tabak family spokesman about how normal he was on the family holiday.
Police bail just means that the police may wish to ask further questions at a later date, and you are obliged to attend if required to. They may have been concerned that CJ might disappear off to France, since he has a property there.
I think the police kept CJ on bail until all the media and public hype had died down before sneaking him out the back door, so to speak. Maybe to give the impression they had a real good reason to arrest him, when they really had made a massive gaff, resulting in an innocent man being publicly vilified, for nothing more than a bit of idle gossip.
According to Wiki: "Police bail where a suspect is released without being charged but must return to the police station at a given time"
From Cherwell's link the "Homeoffice" publication, it says: "You don't have to pay to be released on police bail"
All this seems to suggest that "police bail" does not involve the actual posting of funds. It is more the admonishment the cop would give in the old movies: "we're letting you go, but don't you go leaving town".
The American concept of "bail is a monetary bond you post to assure that you will show up for court after having been charged with a crime. It is serious business.
What is not clear is the significance of Police Bail. Is it strictly for "suspects" or can it also be used for "witnesses" and how is it usually used? Is it routine to use it in a situation like CJ where there was a "link" to a serious crime but no particular evidence that would warrant criminal charges.
What I'm getting at is "is the treatment of CJ normal under the circumstances?" From what I have read in the British papers, most people in the UK believed CJ was guilty until VT’s arrest and some suspicion hung over him after that. It seems that the treatment of CJ was a deliberate effort by the police to cause him to appear “involved” in the crime.
That's right, no money is involved.
Yes, the same in the UK, but the operative word there is 'charged'. CJ wasn't charged.
I'm no expert on the subject, but it would only arise where someone had been arrested, as CJ was. Lots of people will routinely be questioned, some of them will turn out to be witnesses and some may be suspects, but the police bail situation would only apply to someone who was actually arrested.
Difficult to say really, as we don't know what reasons the police had for arresting him, and we don't know what answers he had to their questions. Some people refuse to say anything at all.
I don't think that's the case at all. I never thought him guilty and nor did most people who discussed it with me. The British papers behaved atrociously in this case and some are in serious trouble over it, not only with libel cases but also contempt of court. Don't believe everything you read in the papers!
The police didn't do anything out of the ordinary as far as I'm aware. They arrested a suspect and questioned him for a couple of days before releasing him without charge. Routine stuff. They never identified him - that was the tabloid papers.
The jury will be reminded that their verdict must be based only on evidence heard in court, that they must avoid speculation and that they must disregard anything they have read only in the press, such as reports of what VT may or may not have told his friends and family.
However, human nature is such that it will be difficult for the jury to set aside points such as the one you make. This is why there is such controversy about how much information and speculation appears in the press in such high-profile cases as this.
I wonder if the prosecution will bring the issue of lying into the court? Is it possible that they could follow a line that given his "innocent act" after the event, his account in court can't be trusted?
Can they bring his girlfriend and/or family in as witnesses to his movements and then question them on the story he told them?
CJ was not under suspicion for the entire period, it is pretty much standard practice to continue Police bail even when another suspect has been arrested and charged. Bail will quite often run until the original terms expire (many months).
It is certainly not standard operating practice to round up "the usual suspects", arrest them and then release them on bail. If the Police did that then they would soon bankrupt the country with the vast amount of compensation that would need to be paid out.
It is likely that CJ was arrested because of his behaviour in the days prior to his arrest. It may have seemed that he was trying to inject himself into the investigation which many profilers suggest is typical behaviour of a guilty party. With the pressure on the Police to make progress and arrest someone, it seems that they jumped the gun on little more than a hunch. Once he was arrested they pretty much had carte blanche to search his property, something that he may have previously resisted on the grounds of invasion of privacy.
Unfortunately for both CJ and the Police, profiling is inexact and quite often misleading. I doubt that we will ever get a full explanation of their actions as it is likely that CJ's legal action will be settled well before it reaches a court.
Regarding CJ, I think its 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. Wasnt 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.
Its enough to give the man an early heart attack, the prolonged ordeal will have probably taken years of his life.
They could, but if you read the reports of what his family said, it's mainly opinion rather than fact - he acted normally, he couldn't possibly have done it, and so on. All we know about the family meeting is that he told them that his neighbour had been found dead and that everything (including his own flat) was being searched.
The girlfriend (TM) has never made any statement on what VT told her - indeed she hasn't made any statement at all as far as I know.
Even VT's claim that he was away when she went missing was (no doubt deliberately) phrased in an ambiguous way. After all, she was not officially reported as missing until after the weekend.
Unless someone can actually testify to some succession of lies that he told, it probably won't be a very productive line for the prosecution to follow.
No, she hasn't. There were some pseudo-quotes purporting to be from 'friends' or 'colleagues' eg that 'she would be devastated' etc. Plus various somewhat contradictory statements from her father. (As I understand him to be a lawyer, I am surprised that he handled it so poorly. Surely better to give no comment.) Anyway, we have absolutely nothing on which to base an impression of TM.
That's right. He also said that he didn't know JY. I don't think he knew her well - he had apparently been away for most of the time since they moved in - but I do think they probably knew each other at a superficial level, ie that they were on speaking terms. Reason being that JY is widely reported to have been a friendly outgoing type, and (stereotyping alert!) Dutch people do normally greet people cheerfully on sight, even passing strangers. Still - if you only know someone to exchange the odd pleasantry, I think it's reasonable to say you "don't know them" if you're not going to go into it in detail.
I have been amused by some of the reactions to this. Some people have described this rather over-dramatically, in my opinion. It coincided with a Christmas family gathering, so it was hardly "Calling a Family Meeting"!
I'm sure that anyone who had been caught up, innocently, in the investigation of the murder of a close neighbour, would do the same thing: tell their family what had happened, but not in the presence of small children who might get frightened. So this in itself never struck me as odd behaviour.
There's also lying by omission, he omitted to mention he left her on Longwood Lane, dead.
Er, he is.
How easy a job would the Police have if a suspect were obliged to point out to them how they executed their crime.
He's been threatening to sue them for months has he actually started proceedings yet?
I suppose I'm imagining a scenario where TM is asked about VT's movements that weekend and for those bits she didn't witness herself, she can only repeat VT's account to her. That would expose his lies in court.
Similarly, the reporter(s) he spoke to about his whereabouts that weekend could be asked to repeat what he said couldn't they?
Given that he's admitted to killing JY, what he told TM and the reporter(s) is clearly lies so wouldn't that undermine any credibility he might have in telling the truth in court?
In addition, if he was interviewed by the police prior to being arrested (which I've read he was), whatever he told them about his movements on that Friday night is obviously a pack of lies. I would imagine that could be raised in court.