Vincent Tabak was the victim of a police stitch up. He confessed to killing Joanna Yeates under the blackmailed threat that he had child porn on his pc and that they had his dna and Joanna's blood in his car when that was low copy number dna which is not conclusive. Tabak's legal team provided no valid advice to him and actually assisted the prosecution to get the conviction they so badly needed to close a botched investigation.
There is a book in preparation that undermines the media assassination of Tabak and exposes the way his right to a fair trial was violated.
http://tinyurl.com/73jd7xr

Spare a few minutes to read how Tabak was denied his basic right to enter a plea, to apply for bail and to get visitors. Chris Jefferies might have had the same treatment and you would have been quick to denounce him also.
Why not have the sense to think about the matter before reacting?
Tabak was destroyed by the media reference to porn and child porn that was released after the verdict in order to demonise him.
The fact that the police arrested him with fabricated dna allegations was not addressed because they had forced this terrorised man to confess or he would never be free.

Yes I did have the sense to think about the matter before reacting - I thought about the case and followed it closely since it was first reported over a year ago.

You say Tabak was denied his right to get visitors. For a start we know of three visitors as a particular visit was made public. Do you KNOW he didn't have other visitors? How would you know this? Or are you assuming it because we didn't hear about them?

You say the 'fact' that the police arrested him with fabricated DNA allegations was not addressed... Do you KNOW it to be fact that the DNA allegations were fabricated? Or is this your opinion?

You state just about everything as though it's indesputable fact which is known to you. If that's the case presumably you'd be happy to provide back-up of how you know all this to be so? Otherwise it may be a little less contentious if you didn't state opinions as though they're proven facts.

How do you KNOW the police statement about finding this DNA was a lie? Simple question.

This would also mean of course that the Forensic Scientist lied in court under oath, including her statement that there was less than a one in a billion chance the DNA from the blood in the boot of Tabak's car wasn't Joanna's.

If you keep making accusations, with no back-up, that everyone including the Salvation Army Chaplain lied in Court, then it's just opinion and there seems little point in anyone commenting further on your opinion.