Vincent Tabak: girlfriend’s parents describe architectural engineer as “lovely”

January 21, 2011 | by

The parents of Tanja Morso, girlfriend of Vincent Tabak, confirmed their daughter was in a relationship with the ”lovely Vincent”.

Vincent Tabak: girlfriend's parents describe architectural engineer as

Geoffrey Morson, the father of Tanja Morson, said he had not heard from his daughter.

Speaking on the driveway of his large, detatched home in Cambridge, Mr Morson claimed he had no knowledge of a recent arrest.

He said: ”We are a very close family and I speak to my daughter all the time but she has not told me anything. I do not know if he [Vincent Tabak] is her boyfriend or not.

”He’s a boy’s, she’s a girl and they are friendly with each other.

”Obviously this is a murder investigation and the public have the right to know about it but I don’t know any more than I have read in the newspapers.”

His wife Elizabeth added: ”We saw what happened to the landlord and we don’t want the same to happen to lovely Vincent.”

Police officers were yesterday in attendance at Mr Tabak’s workplace in Bath, Somerset.

Two men, believed to be plain clothed officers, removed items from the offices of Buro Happold

Staff who were approached outside the tall building, situated by the River Avon, refused to confirm whether they knew the 32-year-old.

A marked police van and at least one unmarked police car were parked in the staff car park throughout the day.

The car park, to the right of the building, was sealed off with cones and white signs reading: This car is reserved for Buro Happold staff only.

The signs were moved by a young male staff member to allow police or other employees to pass.

Mr Tabak refused to comment on the case when he was contacted about the Jo Yeates case shortly after Christmas. He hung up the phone when contacted by a journalist.

Police yesterday searched Vincent Tabak’s flat – which is adjoining the property Jo Yeates lived in.

Tags: ,

Category: News

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Re Vioncent Tabak arrested and charged for Jo Yeates murder…Here we go again. Shades of Barry George being arrested for the Jill Dando murder. Incompetent police are pressured into arresting anyone just to be seen to be doing something. Soon we’ll hear that one tiny piece of DNA has provided the breakthrough and is “incontovertible proof” of Tabak’s guilt. No – I’ll wager anyone that he didn’t do it. What the DNA will be – is proof that the police are determined to stitch him up. Who wants to accept my wager?!

  2. Jane says:

    Before Tabek was arrested, I wrote to say that the investigation should be widened to include people who Jo may have trusted but not necessarily known, as the investigation seemed to be on people she knew or may have known.

    On the surface, it would appear that Tabak fits my theory – he is someone that Jo could have trusted, as her neighbour. In addition, his elevated educational credential including master in the flow of people, suggest that he would be a man who pays particular attention to detail, which links into my theory that the perpetrator is someone who is forensically aware.

    Police seem to think they have arrested the right man, as Jo’s body will be released back to the family shortly, and they thanked the family, public, etc.

    Is Tabak guilty? Well that is for the courts. But clearly Jo’s parents’ last appeal seemed to have done the trick and pricked the conscience of somebody out there. The papers say it is Tabak’s girlfriend who phoned in and how did they know where to find Tabak as he had moved from his flat.

    His family – Tabak – says he is a quiet and gentle man but there are numerous incidents in history where such people have turned murderous.

    What do I think happened? Jo returned to her flat as reported in the press. Tabak was in her flat, having let himself through the adjoining door that had apparently been blocked off. Alternatively he could have come through the front door with Jo letting him in, as a neighbour, and therefore some one she trusted.

    By this time she had taken off one sock, drank half of the cider, when she spotted him. She screamed, he panicked and strangled her whilst trying to pacify her. At some point the pizza box must have come in contact with him, maybe as she tried to defend herself.

    If Jo had let him into the flat, my theory is that he came with the express purpose to woo her (notice his girlfriend looks exactly like Jo and some papers say that they had separated) but she rejected him. He got angry, accused her of leading him on and in his anger killed her.

    What either scenario played out above, Tabak then left the flat, and perhaps knowing that the boyfriend was away, revisited it. Having the evidence of his crime lying in wait next door to his flat to found filled him with fear and trepidation, he had to get it out of sight.

    The only way to rid his guilt was to rid the body from his near vicinity, and that’s why I was of the view that in this instance, the perpetrator had to be someone who operated or was closely tied to the vicinity of Jo’s flat.

    Furthermore, it is a great risk to remove a body from a building and dispose of it elsewhere. Removing the body from his vicinity would have psychologically distanced and released Tabak of his guilt.

    So he packed Jo into a large suitcase, hence the absence of drag marks on her clothes and took her to where she was found, avoiding all routes with CCTV. He must have been disturbed; hence he left the body where it was.

    Tabak then set off for Holland on 19 December, returning on 4 January 2011. On his return, Tabak moved to a friend’s flat. Presumably Jo’s parent’s last TV appeal must have confirmed the girlfriend’s suspicions about Tabak – perhaps his behaviour had changed; she had noted a pizza box or the missing sock but he had convinced her otherwise; he had tried to convince her otherwise of other things; was drinking too much, etc.

    And that is where we find ourselves today – is he really guilty given that he seemed to be successful in terms of education, career and life? Appearances are not always what they portray.

  3. Dave489 says:

    Papillon2001, some common sense………. Jane, conceited arrogant self serving know it all!! Jane, just leave the guy alone and let the courts do their bit but as Papilllon2001 says, they will probably get it wrong.

  4. Dave489 says:

    Jane, just one further comment, most people seem to have had the decency to leave Vincent Tabak alone but there is always one!! Sadly that’s you. You are so arrogant!!!!!!!

  5. The Quiet Dutchman says:

    This case has really disturbed me for reasons that go beyond the obvious fact that an intelligent and attractive young woman’s life has been cut short but also because of what it potentially says about the character of the tall, brilliant and accomplished young man now standing accused of Ms. Yeates murder. I do not want to believe Mr. Tabak is guilty because his life seems just as promising as the victim’s was but I’ve a foreboding feeling about the young Dutchman with the perfect CV, a feeling that in all of us, no matter how civilized and cultured we may appear, have within in us the potential for evil of this sort. It would do wonders for my faith in the benignity of human nature if Mr. Tabak were acquitted.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Vincent Tabak is a highly motivated academic who spent 5 years researching for a Ph.D. So what was his motive for killing Jo? Did she threaten to leave him, taking the children with her? Of course she did not – he did not even know her! There is no precedent for a person with a Ph.D murdering a stranger. The clue to his innocence is the police’s methodology – they arrested first the landlord Christopher Jefferies, then the neighbour Vincent Tabak. They were looking not for suspects with motives, but for suspects into whose car boots Jo’s DNA might be expected to have been transferred by, e.g., Jo’s cat Bernard. When Dr. Tabak’s case came to trial, the press was groomed to tell the world (but not the jury) that he was a sexual pervert (even though the victim had not been raped) just in case the public speculated about the absence of a motive.